[UGA Lawdog]

On the other hand, I can show several court cases that refute your silly theory.

Contention: Taxpayers are not required to file a federal income tax return, because the instructions and regulations associated with the Form 1040 do not display an OMB control number as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act.

Some argue that taxpayers are not required to file tax returns because of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980, 44 U.S.C. sec. 3501, et seq. ("PRA"). The PRA was enacted to limit federal agencies' information requests that burden the public. The "public protection" provision of the PRA provides that no person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to maintain or provide information to any agency if the information collection request
involved does not display a current control number assigned by the Office of Management and Budget [OMB] Director. 44 U.S.C. sec. 3512. Advocates of this contention claim that they cannot be penalized for failing
to file Form 1040, because the instructions and regulations associated with the Form 1040 do not display any OMB control number.

The Law: The courts have uniformly rejected this argument on different grounds. Some courts have simply noted that the PRA applies to the forms themselves, not to the instruction booklets, and because the Form
1040 does have a control number, there is no PRA violation.

Other courts have held that Congress created the duty to file returns in section 6012(a) and "Congress did not enact the PRA's public protection provision to allow OMB to abrogate any duty imposed by Congress."
United States v. Neff, 954 F.2d 698, 699 (11th Cir. 1992). Also, the Internal Revenue Service issued Revenue Ruling 2006-21 warning taxpayers of the consequences of making this frivolous argument.

Relevant Case Law:
United States v. Wunder, 919 F.2d 34 (6th Cir. 1990): the court rejected Wunder's claim of a PRA violation, affirming his conviction for failing to file a return.

Salberg v. United States, 969 F.2d 379 (7th Cir. 1992): the court affirmed Salberg's conviction for tax evasion and failing to file a return, rejecting his claims under the PRA.

United States v. Holden, 963 F.2d 1114 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 958 (1992): the court affirmed Holden's conviction for failing to file a return and rejected his contention that he should have been acquitted
because tax instruction booklets fail to comply with the PRA.

United States v. Hicks, 947 F.2d 1356, 1359 (9th Cir. 1991): the court affirmed Hicks' conviction for failing to file a return, finding that the requirement to provide information is required by law, not by the IRS.
"This is a legislative command, not an administrative request. The PRA was not meant to provide criminals with an all-purpose escape hatch."

Lonsdale v. United States, 919 F.2d 1440, 1445 (10th Cir. 1990): the court held that the Paperwork Reduction Act was not enacted "to create a
loophole in the taxcode".

It's a shame there's no Olympic event for being dead wrong. You'd be in the running for the gold.