Catch22. If you cannot legally be forced to sign a document etc - Tax Declaration etc etc etc...

[Ext User(Catch22)]

If you cannot legally be forced to sign a document etc etc...

Then is tax 'law' etc etc really just an elaborate bluff
to make people 'sign away' their hard earned money
when they 'legally' really do not have to - extortion ???

It seems 'not logical' - catch 22 sort of - a long-running government scam?

How exactly can they 'legally' force you to do a tax return,
what is the actual law involved?

Cheers.

[Ext User(Heretic)]

On Fri, 26 Aug 2005 01:31:23 +0000, Catch22 wrote:

> If you cannot legally be forced to sign a document etc etc...
>
> Then is tax 'law' etc etc really just an elaborate bluff to make people
> 'sign away' their hard earned money when they 'legally' really do not
> have to - extortion ???
>
> It seems 'not logical' - catch 22 sort of - a long-running government
> scam?
>
> How exactly can they 'legally' force you to do a tax return, what is the
> actual law involved?

Section 161 of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 applies -
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/itaa1936240/s161.html

It works like provisions in many pieces of legislation. It tells you what
to do, and imposes a penalty for not doing so. If you still don't comply,
the ATO can get a court order that you lodge a return according to law
(which includes signing it). If you don't comply with the order, you go to
jail.

Most people comply with laws in this form. It's usually seen as the duty
of people living in our community to comply with the law. If you don't
agree with a law, you are free to agitate to change the law, in the usual
manner.

If you comply with the tax law, you complete the usual return, sign it,
and send it to the ATO. You might have already paid your tax liability, or
you have a tax liability, and get to pay it.

There is no bluff. It is not forcing anyone to do anything, unless you
regard compliance with the law as being forced.

[Ext User(Sylvia Else)]

Heretic wrote:

> On Fri, 26 Aug 2005 01:31:23 +0000, Catch22 wrote:
>
>
>>If you cannot legally be forced to sign a document etc etc...
>>
>>Then is tax 'law' etc etc really just an elaborate bluff to make people
>>'sign away' their hard earned money when they 'legally' really do not
>>have to - extortion ???
>>
>>It seems 'not logical' - catch 22 sort of - a long-running government
>>scam?
>>
>>How exactly can they 'legally' force you to do a tax return, what is the
>>actual law involved?
>
>
> Section 161 of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 applies -
> http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/itaa1936240/s161.html
>
> It works like provisions in many pieces of legislation. It tells you what
> to do, and imposes a penalty for not doing so. If you still don't comply,
> the ATO can get a court order that you lodge a return according to law
> (which includes signing it). If you don't comply with the order, you go to
> jail.

I don't think it's quite so clear cut that the obligation includes
signing the document. The return form might require all sorts of
information, and direct all sorts of actions, but they have the force of
law only if they are a valid exercise of the Commissioners powers in
relating to taxation.

But if you refuse to sign the return, but still lodge it, as required be
law, then presumably the commissioner will assess the amount of tax
according to the content of the return. So even if you don't strictly
speaking have to sign the return, you can't avoid paying tax that way.

Returns submitted over the Internet are not signed. The Commissioner
clearly doesn't have a problem with that.

I haven't heard of anyone attempting to repudiate a return sent over the
Internet. It would be interesting to see how that panned out.

Sylvia.

[Ext User(Peter)]

Catch22 wrote:

> If you cannot legally be forced to sign a document etc etc...
>
> How exactly can they 'legally' force you to do a tax return,
> what is the actual law involved?
>
Parliament (through its supremacy) can pass laws requiring people to declare
things and then affirming truthfulness by signing it eg tax returns.
People in business and commerce are also often required to declare things
under signature and in extreme cases under oath ie signature witnessed by a
solicitor or JP. It is not really different to having to give evidence
under oath in court. It is also not unreasonable for an employee to be
expected to sign for his or pay or to sign a docket when uplifting items
from the company's store, receiving goods on behalf of the company etc. In
such cases nothing would stop an employee from using an alternative form of
signature. An employee can refuse to sign something if it related to a
fraudulent purpose.

There are occasions where a court can make an order effectively 'signing'
documents where a person refuses to sign. Someone I know recently refused
to sign paperwork to facilitate issue of a fresh Torrens Title where both
the 'original' land registry copy and the 'duplicate' landowner copy were
missing. Legal advice was that it was over to the person's conscience if a
person did not wish to sign and the current owner is faced with going to
court to re-validate ownership. A more direct example would be a court
order to a land registrar to transfer land where the judge ordered specific
performance of a purchase and sale contract.

[Ext User(Heretic)]

On Fri, 26 Aug 2005 12:43:12 +1000, Sylvia Else wrote:


>
> Heretic wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 26 Aug 2005 01:31:23 +0000, Catch22 wrote:
>>
>>
>>>If you cannot legally be forced to sign a document etc etc...
>>>
>>>Then is tax 'law' etc etc really just an elaborate bluff to make people
>>>'sign away' their hard earned money when they 'legally' really do not
>>>have to - extortion ???
>>>
>>>It seems 'not logical' - catch 22 sort of - a long-running government
>>>scam?
>>>
>>>How exactly can they 'legally' force you to do a tax return, what is
>>>the actual law involved?
>>
>>
>> Section 161 of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 applies -
>> http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/itaa1936240/s161.html
>>
>> It works like provisions in many pieces of legislation. It tells you
>> what to do, and imposes a penalty for not doing so. If you still don't
>> comply, the ATO can get a court order that you lodge a return according
>> to law (which includes signing it). If you don't comply with the order,
>> you go to jail.
>
> I don't think it's quite so clear cut that the obligation includes
> signing the document. The return form might require all sorts of
> information, and direct all sorts of actions, but they have the force of
> law only if they are a valid exercise of the Commissioners powers in
> relating to taxation.
>
> But if you refuse to sign the return, but still lodge it, as required be
> law, then presumably the commissioner will assess the amount of tax
> according to the content of the return. So even if you don't strictly
> speaking have to sign the return, you can't avoid paying tax that way.

You will have the return sent back to you, telling you to sign it and
lodge it. Until then, it is regarded by the ATO as not lodged in
compliance with the law. See also sections 161A and 164. Refusing to sign
a document you have prepared as an indication that you adopt the contents
of the document has long been regarded as customary. I doubt if the point
would trouble a court.

> Returns submitted over the Internet are not signed. The Commissioner
> clearly doesn't have a problem with that.
>
> I haven't heard of anyone attempting to repudiate a return sent over the
> Internet. It would be interesting to see how that panned out.

I assume that such returns are of the simpler kind if lodged by the
taxpayer.

[Ext User(Sylvia Else)]

Heretic wrote:

> You will have the return sent back to you, telling you to sign it and
> lodge it. Until then, it is regarded by the ATO as not lodged in
> compliance with the law. See also sections 161A and 164. Refusing to sign
> a document you have prepared as an indication that you adopt the contents
> of the document has long been regarded as customary. I doubt if the point
> would trouble a court.

The approved form (161A) is still subject to the requirement that it be
a proper use of the powers. If anything, 164 seems to serve as an
indication that the signature is not really required. It's sufficient
that the return purport to be from a person, whether or not it is
signed. This answers another question which came to mind, which is that
the person may not be capable of signing the document (eg, because they
are paralysed), even though they are still competent to manage their own
affairs.

Sylvia.

[Ext User(Heretic)]

On Fri, 26 Aug 2005 13:11:36 +1000, Sylvia Else wrote:



> Heretic wrote:
>
>> You will have the return sent back to you, telling you to sign it and
>> lodge it. Until then, it is regarded by the ATO as not lodged in
>> compliance with the law. See also sections 161A and 164. Refusing to
>> sign a document you have prepared as an indication that you adopt the
>> contents of the document has long been regarded as customary. I doubt
>> if the point would trouble a court.
>
> The approved form (161A) is still subject to the requirement that it be
> a proper use of the powers. If anything, 164 seems to serve as an
> indication that the signature is not really required. It's sufficient
> that the return purport to be from a person, whether or not it is
> signed. This answers another question which came to mind, which is that
> the person may not be capable of signing the document (eg, because they
> are paralysed), even though they are still competent to manage their own
> affairs.

Agreed, in principle. But the subject of tax returns is so central to tax
administration, and has been around for so long, that it would be a most
audacious taxpayer who tried it on. I don't think that the courts or admin
review agencies would be impressed.

What might the argument against signature be? That it is unreasonable to
require a person providing information in a written form as required by
law to sign it as an indication that it is the person's information?

[Ext User(David Moss)]

In article <430e70ca@news.comindico.com.au>, Catch@22.com writes...

> If you cannot legally be forced to sign a document etc etc...
>
> Then is tax 'law' etc etc really just an elaborate bluff
> to make people 'sign away' their hard earned money
> when they 'legally' really do not have to - extortion ???
>
> It seems 'not logical' - catch 22 sort of - a long-running government scam?
>
> How exactly can they 'legally' force you to do a tax return,
> what is the actual law involved?

A tax return is only a convenient way of exchanging information.
You can be compelled to provide information, and you can be compelled to
pay tax. You can not be compelled to sign something.

Of course if you do not sign your tax return your life will be much
harder than if you do.

The Tax Act has provisions for when it is impractical for an individual
to sign a form. It allows someone else to sign it if authorised to do so
by the individual.

I would say that if you refused to sign a tax declaration and dd not
authorise someone else to sign it for you, you would be assumed not to
have provided the information required and prosecuted.

You would probably not be prosecuted for not signing, but the
consequences would be bad just the same.

--
DM
personal opinion only

[Ext User(Sylvia Else)]

Heretic wrote:

> What might the argument against signature be? That it is unreasonable to
> require a person providing information in a written form as required by
> law to sign it as an indication that it is the person's information?

If it came down to the line here, I think I'd argue that the requirement
to provide a signature is not valid because doing so in reality serves
no useful purpose. It tells the ATO nothing until and unless they have
an authenticated specimen of the signature, and even then it is of use
only if they perform signature checks. I bet they don't. Even if the
signature matched, it might still be forged.

Signing the document is hardly onerous, but to my mind, that is not the
test.

Has anyone had a return, um, returned, because they failed to sign it?
If so, then the ATO is taking a risk if they simply return it, in that
one is required to lodge a return, but not required to lodge it twice.
So if it were held by the courts that the return had been duely lodged,
but the ATO returned it, then the ATO would no longer have the
information they required. On the other hand, if the ATO copies it
before returning it, then they're pretty much acknowledging that it is a
return, lack of signature not withstanding.

However, this is one I think I'll let pass. I file my return by
Internet, and despite what some might think, I don't go out of my way to
cause trouble.

Sylvia.

[Ext User(Heretic)]

On Fri, 26 Aug 2005 14:04:32 +1000, Sylvia Else wrote:


>
> Heretic wrote:
>
>> What might the argument against signature be? That it is unreasonable
>> to require a person providing information in a written form as required
>> by law to sign it as an indication that it is the person's information?
>
> If it came down to the line here, I think I'd argue that the requirement
> to provide a signature is not valid because doing so in reality serves
> no useful purpose.

What about stat decs, alfred-davids, and the like? You have to sign the
application for a dog licence. Or for a passport. And even for a Marriage
Certificate, for goodness sake!

> It tells the ATO nothing until and unless they have an authenticated
> specimen of the signature, and even then it is of use only if they
> perform signature checks. I bet they don't.

You win the bet.

> Even if the signature matched, it might still be forged.
>
> Signing the document is hardly onerous, but to my mind, that is not the
> test.

What is the test?

> Has anyone had a return, um, returned, because they failed to sign it?

A very great many. Over many decades.

> If so, then the ATO is taking a risk if they simply return it, in that
> one is required to lodge a return, but not required to lodge it twice.
> So if it were held by the courts that the return had been duely lodged,
> but the ATO returned it, then the ATO would no longer have the
> information they required.

That's a big "if".

> On the other hand, if the ATO copies it before returning it,

They don't. There are many returned for signature.

> then they're pretty much acknowledging that it is a return, lack of
> signature not withstanding.
>
> However, this is one I think I'll let pass. I file my return by
> Internet, and despite what some might think, I don't go out of my way to
> cause trouble.

Spoilsport.

[Ext User(Tim May)]

In article <3n7kmuF82vbU1@individual.net>, Heretic
<cathars@montaillou.com.fr> wrote:

> On Fri, 26 Aug 2005 14:04:32 +1000, Sylvia Else wrote:
>
>
> >
> > Heretic wrote:
> >
> >> What might the argument against signature be? That it is unreasonable
> >> to require a person providing information in a written form as required
> >> by law to sign it as an indication that it is the person's information?
> >
> > If it came down to the line here, I think I'd argue that the requirement
> > to provide a signature is not valid because doing so in reality serves
> > no useful purpose.
>
> What about stat decs, alfred-davids, and the like? You have to sign the
> application for a dog licence. Or for a passport. And even for a Marriage
> Certificate, for goodness sake!

You don't _have_ to own a dog (and certainly don't have to register it
in many places). You don't have to have a passport. And you don't have
to get married.

However, force of law requires everyone not exempted (welfare,
coloreds) to sign a legal document called a tax return. Spouses, too.

Personally, I have been signing my tax returns since 1974, as required
by law. But I am fully cognizant that this forced signature is counter
to everything the Founders and like-minded folk had about voluntary
contracts.

Those who argue otherwise ought to be marched into the rendering pits.
There is not much wrong with America that would not be solved by
rendering down 15 million whites, 37 million coloreds, and 28 million
Mexicans.


--Tim May

[Ext User(Heretic)]

On Thu, 25 Aug 2005 21:47:29 -0700, Tim May wrote:

> In article <3n7kmuF82vbU1@individual.net>, Heretic
> <cathars@montaillou.com.fr> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 26 Aug 2005 14:04:32 +1000, Sylvia Else wrote:
>>
>>
>> >
>> > Heretic wrote:
>> >
>> >> What might the argument against signature be? That it is unreasonable
>> >> to require a person providing information in a written form as required
>> >> by law to sign it as an indication that it is the person's information?
>> >
>> > If it came down to the line here, I think I'd argue that the requirement
>> > to provide a signature is not valid because doing so in reality serves
>> > no useful purpose.
>>
>> What about stat decs, alfred-davids, and the like? You have to sign the
>> application for a dog licence. Or for a passport. And even for a Marriage
>> Certificate, for goodness sake!
>
> You don't _have_ to own a dog (and certainly don't have to register it
> in many places). You don't have to have a passport. And you don't have
> to get married.
>
> However, force of law requires everyone not exempted (welfare,
> coloreds) to sign a legal document called a tax return. Spouses, too.
>
> Personally, I have been signing my tax returns since 1974, as required
> by law. But I am fully cognizant that this forced signature is counter
> to everything the Founders and like-minded folk had about voluntary
> contracts.
>
> Those who argue otherwise ought to be marched into the rendering pits.
> There is not much wrong with America that would not be solved by
> rendering down 15 million whites, 37 million coloreds, and 28 million
> Mexicans.

I take it that you are speaking of the USA. Do you find it strange that
the basic issue of signing income tax returns is relevant everywhere that
such signed returns are required, which is likely from almost all the
English-speaking countries and a goodly number of other countries that
impose an individual progressive income tax regime.

Much of the discussion is from Australian posters.

[Ext User(Soixante Un Jour Une Vieille Viande)]

Heretic wrote:
>
> On Thu, 25 Aug 2005 21:47:29 -0700, Tim May wrote:
>
> > In article <3n7kmuF82vbU1@individual.net>, Heretic
> > <cathars@montaillou.com.fr> wrote:
> >
> >> On Fri, 26 Aug 2005 14:04:32 +1000, Sylvia Else wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> >
> >> > Heretic wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> What might the argument against signature be? That it is unreasonable
> >> >> to require a person providing information in a written form as required
> >> >> by law to sign it as an indication that it is the person's information?
> >> >
> >> > If it came down to the line here, I think I'd argue that the requirement
> >> > to provide a signature is not valid because doing so in reality serves
> >> > no useful purpose.
> >>
> >> What about stat decs, alfred-davids, and the like? You have to sign the
> >> application for a dog licence. Or for a passport. And even for a Marriage
> >> Certificate, for goodness sake!
> >
> > You don't _have_ to own a dog (and certainly don't have to register it
> > in many places). You don't have to have a passport. And you don't have
> > to get married.
> >
> > However, force of law requires everyone not exempted (welfare,
> > coloreds) to sign a legal document called a tax return. Spouses, too.
> >
> > Personally, I have been signing my tax returns since 1974, as required
> > by law. But I am fully cognizant that this forced signature is counter
> > to everything the Founders and like-minded folk had about voluntary
> > contracts.
> >
> > Those who argue otherwise ought to be marched into the rendering pits.
> > There is not much wrong with America that would not be solved by
> > rendering down 15 million whites, 37 million coloreds, and 28 million
> > Mexicans.
>
> I take it that you are speaking of the USA. Do you find it strange that
> the basic issue of signing income tax returns is relevant everywhere that
> such signed returns are required, which is likely from almost all the
> English-speaking countries and a goodly number of other countries that
> impose an individual progressive income tax regime.
>
> Much of the discussion is from Australian posters.

LOL. You reckon? Most English speaking countries and a goodly number
of other coutries that impose an individual progressive income tax
regime have either never heard of Australia or certainly wouldn't know
where it's located on an atlas. You Austrians think the world revolves
around you don't you?

[Ext User(Sylvia Else)]

Soixante Un Jour Une Vieille Viande wrote:

> Heretic wrote:

>>Much of the discussion is from Australian posters.
>
>
> LOL. You reckon? Most English speaking countries and a goodly number
> of other coutries that impose an individual progressive income tax
> regime have either never heard of Australia or certainly wouldn't know
> where it's located on an atlas. You Austrians think the world revolves
> around you don't you?

Huh? What has that to do with it?

It's a simple statement of fact. Look back over the thread. It is true
that much of the dicussion is from Australian posters.

Sylvia.

[Ext User(Tim May)]

In article <3n7lr0F8bb2U1@individual.net>, Heretic
<cathars@montaillou.com.fr> wrote:

>
> I take it that you are speaking of the USA. Do you find it strange that
> the basic issue of signing income tax returns is relevant everywhere that
> such signed returns are required, which is likely from almost all the
> English-speaking countries and a goodly number of other countries that
> impose an individual progressive income tax regime.
>
> Much of the discussion is from Australian posters.

Idiot. Most of the domains are US. A few, like you, are French. The
debate about signing returns was clearly about the Constitution, not
some French or Australian law, which, after all, is whatever the
satraps who run these countries think the law should be.

Face it, Americans invented the Net and dominate the Net. Get used to
it.

(I will post this on "Minitel" if it means more of you French will see
it.)


I got my first ARPANET account in 1973 and have been active since. Cf.
this site:

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Usenet_people>

and look under the letter "M."


--Tim May

[Ext User(Heretic)]

On Fri, 26 Aug 2005 05:02:52 +0000, Soixante Un Jour Une Vieille Viande
wrote:

> Heretic wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, 25 Aug 2005 21:47:29 -0700, Tim May wrote:
>>
>> > In article <3n7kmuF82vbU1@individual.net>, Heretic
>> > <cathars@montaillou.com.fr> wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Fri, 26 Aug 2005 14:04:32 +1000, Sylvia Else wrote:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> > Heretic wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> What might the argument against signature be? That it is unreasonable
>> >> >> to require a person providing information in a written form as required
>> >> >> by law to sign it as an indication that it is the person's information?
>> >> >
>> >> > If it came down to the line here, I think I'd argue that the requirement
>> >> > to provide a signature is not valid because doing so in reality serves
>> >> > no useful purpose.
>> >>
>> >> What about stat decs, alfred-davids, and the like? You have to sign the
>> >> application for a dog licence. Or for a passport. And even for a Marriage
>> >> Certificate, for goodness sake!
>> >
>> > You don't _have_ to own a dog (and certainly don't have to register it
>> > in many places). You don't have to have a passport. And you don't have
>> > to get married.
>> >
>> > However, force of law requires everyone not exempted (welfare,
>> > coloreds) to sign a legal document called a tax return. Spouses, too.
>> >
>> > Personally, I have been signing my tax returns since 1974, as required
>> > by law. But I am fully cognizant that this forced signature is counter
>> > to everything the Founders and like-minded folk had about voluntary
>> > contracts.
>> >
>> > Those who argue otherwise ought to be marched into the rendering pits.
>> > There is not much wrong with America that would not be solved by
>> > rendering down 15 million whites, 37 million coloreds, and 28 million
>> > Mexicans.
>>
>> I take it that you are speaking of the USA. Do you find it strange that
>> the basic issue of signing income tax returns is relevant everywhere that
>> such signed returns are required, which is likely from almost all the
>> English-speaking countries and a goodly number of other countries that
>> impose an individual progressive income tax regime.
>>
>> Much of the discussion is from Australian posters.
>
> LOL. You reckon? Most English speaking countries and a goodly number
> of other coutries that impose an individual progressive income tax
> regime have either never heard of Australia or certainly wouldn't know
> where it's located on an atlas.

Quite likely.

> You Austrians think the world revolves around you don't you?

What makes you imagine that I am one of whatever you imagine you may or
may not be?

And what about the proposal of rendering quite a few million Americans is
so attractive to you?

[Ext User(Heretic)]

On Thu, 25 Aug 2005 22:11:12 -0700, Tim May wrote:

> In article <3n7lr0F8bb2U1@individual.net>, Heretic
> <cathars@montaillou.com.fr> wrote:
>
>
>> I take it that you are speaking of the USA. Do you find it strange
>> that the basic issue of signing income tax returns is relevant
>> everywhere that such signed returns are required, which is likely from
>> almost all the English-speaking countries and a goodly number of other
>> countries that impose an individual progressive income tax regime.
>>
>> Much of the discussion is from Australian posters.
>
> Idiot.

Powerful argument.

> Most of the domains are US. A few, like you, are French.

Wrong, again.

> The
> debate about signing returns was clearly about the Constitution, not
> some French or Australian law, which, after all, is whatever the satraps
> who run these countries think the law should be.

Oh? Which Constitution was that? It obviously escapes you that the issue
concerns a few taxpayers around the world who have no connection
whatsoever to the USA.

> Face it, Americans invented the Net and dominate the Net. Get used to
> it.
>
> (I will post this on "Minitel" if it means more of you French will see
> it.)

Wow! That will learn them a lesson, although they may be a little
mystified why you bothered. Then they will realise that you are simply a
fuckwit.

> I got my first ARPANET account in 1973 and have been active since. Cf.
> this site:
>
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Usenet_people>
>
> and look under the letter "M."

No, but thanks awfully for that important information.

[Ext User(Sylvia Else)]

Heretic wrote:

> What about stat decs, alfred-davids, and the like? You have to sign the
> application for a dog licence. Or for a passport. And even for a Marriage
> Certificate, for goodness sake!

This just means that there might be many areas where the requirement to
supply a signature could be found to be invalid.

In the mean time, there's this

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/aia1901230/s25c.html

"Compliance with forms

Where an Act prescribes a form, then, unless the contrary intention
appears, strict compliance with the form is not required and substantial
compliance is sufficient."

Of course, it would have been nice if at least some guidance were
provided as to what "substantial compliance" means. Still, the substance
of a tax return is the information on it, I'd have thought. The
signature is just a frill.

>>However, this is one I think I'll let pass. I file my return by
>>Internet, and despite what some might think, I don't go out of my way to
>>cause trouble.
>
>
> Spoilsport.

Not at all - I'm perfectly willing to come and watch you play the
not-signing-a-tax-return game.

Sylvia.

[Ext User(Heretic)]

On Fri, 26 Aug 2005 15:22:39 +1000, Sylvia Else wrote:

>
>
> Heretic wrote:
>
>> What about stat decs, alfred-davids, and the like? You have to sign the
>> application for a dog licence. Or for a passport. And even for a Marriage
>> Certificate, for goodness sake!
>
> This just means that there might be many areas where the requirement to
> supply a signature could be found to be invalid.
>
> In the mean time, there's this
>
> http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/aia1901230/s25c.html
>
> "Compliance with forms
>
> Where an Act prescribes a form, then, unless the contrary intention
> appears, strict compliance with the form is not required and substantial
> compliance is sufficient."
>
> Of course, it would have been nice if at least some guidance were
> provided as to what "substantial compliance" means. Still, the substance
> of a tax return is the information on it, I'd have thought. The
> signature is just a frill.
>
>>>However, this is one I think I'll let pass. I file my return by
>>>Internet, and despite what some might think, I don't go out of my way to
>>>cause trouble.
>>
>>
>> Spoilsport.
>
> Not at all - I'm perfectly willing to come and watch you play the
> not-signing-a-tax-return game.

It's not something I've done before, but I'd give it a go if you are
prepared to pay the entry fee.

[Ext User(Sylvia Else)]

Heretic wrote:

> It's not something I've done before, but I'd give it a go if you are
> prepared to pay the entry fee.

That's 50 cents for the stamp on the envelope isn't it? I think I can
run to that.

Sylvia.