"D. Stussy" <kd6lvw[at]bde-arc.ampr.org> wrote:
- quote -

The point was that if you legitimately believe no tax is due
so no return is filed, the IRS can come back six years later
and claim that there should have been tax paid of, say, $10,
because the underpayment was more than 25%.

Stu

<< -------------------------------------------------> << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting > << messages to this newsgroup are at www.asktax.org > << ------------------------------------------------->

TaxSrv wrote:
- quote -


<< -------------------------------------------------> << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting > << messages to this newsgroup are at www.asktax.org > << ------------------------------------------------->

- quote -

Cool, so basically they know all about any income already
thats associated with W-2/1099 documents. I'm just looking
forward to the day that the tax code works so that the
correct amount is taken out your check (if you have one) and
no one has to file again, or a national sales tax.

<< -------------------------------------------------> << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting > << messages to this newsgroup are at www.asktax.org > << ------------------------------------------------->

- quote -

True, but this thread is about filing a return with no
income in it. If you file a return with zero gross income,
the 6-year statute is automatic; consider the math.

Fred F.

<< -------------------------------------------------> << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting > << messages to this newsgroup are at www.asktax.org > << ------------------------------------------------->

- quote -

No, they DON'T have 6 years automatically. They have to
show that the underreporting exceeded 25% of what a taxpayer
did report to get to the 6 year statute. Otherwise, they're
still stuck at 3 years (or proof of fraud).

- quote -

Since when is a not-required return necessarily a "zero
return?"

<< -------------------------------------------------> << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting > << messages to this newsgroup are at www.asktax.org > << ------------------------------------------------->

- quote -

I can't see where this is ever advantageous. If IRS has
W-2/1099 documents on you, they would automatically have six
years to assess, but obviously their underreporter program
has to be more current than that.

There's even potential disaster under the criminal tax
statutes, where jeopardy is significantly increased if you
file such a return. That would require a scenario where the
t/p knew that the zero return was false. Since we're not
considering that type of situation -- thus useful tips for
crooks, what practical scenario exists where you're better
off starting the running of a six year statute? Just can't
think of one.

Fred F.

<< -------------------------------------------------> << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting > << messages to this newsgroup are at www.asktax.org > << ------------------------------------------------->

an_ordinary_guy_158[at]hotmail.com (Bill) writes:

- quote -

For one thing, it starts the clock on the statute of
limitations on that return. If you don't file, the
return is never "closed".

If the IRS doesn't want "unnecessary paper clogging
the system", maybe it should lobby Congress to pass
a law providing some sort of finality to people who
aren't required to file and don't file.

--
Rich Carreiro rlcarr[at]animato.arlington.ma.us

<< -------------------------------------------------> << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting > << messages to this newsgroup are at www.asktax.org > << ------------------------------------------------->

"noway" wrote:

- quote -

The filing instructuctions mean what they say about not
required to file. IRS delinquency programs have a
methodology where they need not worry about people who don't
file every year. They know from W-2/1099 documents on
computer who has how much income.

Fred F.

<< -------------------------------------------------> << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting > << messages to this newsgroup are at www.asktax.org > << ------------------------------------------------->

noway[at]noway.net (noway) wrote:

- quote -

Don't file. Why clog the system with unnecessary paper? If
the IRS wants to know why you didn't file, they'll write
you. At that time, you can respond by telling them you had
no income in 2004.

Most likely, you'll never hear anything.

Bill

<< -------------------------------------------------> << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting > << messages to this newsgroup are at www.asktax.org > << ------------------------------------------------->

"noway" <noway[at]noway.net> wrote:

- quote -

If you truly had no income that needs to be reported, you
need do nothing. However, there are many things that are
taxable-be careful saying you had no income. IRS will be
aware if you did. If you didn't, what would they audit
anyway? The question may be in their view-how did you live
and eat during 2004?

Wayne Brasch, CPA, M. S. Taxation

<< -------------------------------------------------> << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting > << messages to this newsgroup are at www.asktax.org > << ------------------------------------------------->

Having had the distinction of not making any money in 2004 I
have a question. Since I don't want to get audited (not
that I would be worried if I was) would it be better to
a. not file
b. file
c. file with an explanatory letter.

Thanks for any opinions.

<< -------------------------------------------------> << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting > << messages to this newsgroup are at www.asktax.org > << ------------------------------------------------->