## Facts

- Ted H. Kimball was convicted in the District of Nevada on three counts of willful failure to file an income tax return under 26 U.S.C. § 7203.
- For the tax years charged, Kimball submitted IRS Forms 1040 that provided no financial information.
- On the forms, Kimball entered only asterisks in the spaces for financial entries and signed his name.
- The Forms 1040 contained no data from which the IRS could compute tax liability.
- A Ninth Circuit panel initially reversed, concluding the submitted documents were “returns.”
- The Ninth Circuit granted rehearing en banc to decide whether such filings qualify as “returns” under § 7203.

## Issues

1. Whether a signed Form 1040 containing no financial information (only asterisks) constitutes a “return” within the meaning of 26 U.S.C. § 7203.

## Decision

- The en banc Ninth Circuit held that Kimball’s submitted Forms 1040 were not “returns” as a matter of law under § 7203.
- The court vacated the earlier panel decision to the extent it treated the documents as returns.
- The court remanded the appeal to the original panel for further proceedings consistent with the en banc holding.

## Legal Principles

- As a general rule, a document that does not contain information relating to the taxpayer’s income from which tax owed can be computed is not a “return” within the meaning of 26 U.S.C. § 7203.
- A signed Form 1040 that contains no financial information does not satisfy the filing requirement for purposes of avoiding criminal liability for willful failure to file.
- Civil-penalty cases interpreting 26 U.S.C. § 6702 (frivolous “purported returns”) do not control what qualifies as an actual “return” in a criminal prosecution under § 7203.

## Conclusion

The en banc Ninth Circuit ruled that Forms 1040 containing only asterisks and no financial data are not tax returns under § 7203, vacated the contrary portion of the panel opinion, and remanded for resolution of any remaining appellate issues under that legal standard.


United States v. Kimball, 925 F.2d 356 (9th Cir. 1991) (en banc)