Editing Form 1040 (section)

==OMB control number controversy==
{{Main|Tax protester administrative arguments}}

One argument used by tax protesters against the legitimacy of the 1040 Form is the OMB Control Number of the Paperwork Reduction Act argument. Tax protesters contend that Form 1040 does not contain an "OMB Control Number" which is issued by the U.S. [[United States Office of Management and Budget|Office of Management and Budget]] under the [[Paperwork Reduction Act]].

The relevant clauses of the Paperwork Reduction Act state that:
::§ 1320.6 Public protection.

::(a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information that is subject to the requirements of this part if:

::::(1) The collection of information does not display, in accordance with §1320.3(f) and §1320.5(b)(1), a currently valid OMB control number assigned by the Director in accordance with the Act...

::(e) The protection provided by paragraph (a) of this section does not preclude the imposition of a penalty on a person for failing to comply with a collection of information that is imposed on the person by statute—e.g., 26 U.S.C. §6011(a) (statutory requirement for person to file a tax return)...<ref>5 C.F.R. sec. 1320.6.</ref>

The Courts have responded to the OMB Control Number arguments with the following arguments. 1) Form 1040, U.S. Individual Income Tax Return has contained the OMB Control number since 1981.<ref>The OMB control number is in the upper right corner of page 1 of the form. The short forms, Form 1040A and Form 1040EZ, also bear OMB control numbers.</ref> 2) As ruled in a number of cases, the absence of an OMB Control number does not eliminate the legal obligation to file or pay taxes.

Cases involving the OMB Control Number Argument include:
*''United States v. Wunder''
The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit argues that the provisions on the Paperwork Reduction Act are not relevant as the act applies only to information requests made after December 31, 1981, and tax returns starting from 1981 contained an OMB Control Number.<ref>919 F.2d 34, 90-2 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) paragr. 50,575 (6th Cir. 1990).</ref>
*''United States v. Patridge''
The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit rejected the convicted taxpayer's OMB control number argument by stating "Finally, we have no doubt that the IRS has complied with the Paperwork Reduction Act. Form 1040 bears a control number from OMB, as do the other forms the IRS commonly distributes to taxpayers. That this number has been constant since 1981 does not imply that OMB has shirked its duty."<ref name="Patridge">''United States v. Patridge'', 507 F.3d 1092, 2007-2 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) paragr. 50,806 (7th Cir. 2007), ''cert. denied'', 552 U.S. ___, 128 S. Ct. 1721 (2008).</ref>
*''United States v. Lawrence''
In this Case, IRS agents who had calculated Lawrence's tax liability had made an error and it was discovered that Lawrence owed less taxes than originally determined. Lawrence asked the trial court to order the government to reimburse him for his legal fees, to which the trial court ruled against him. He appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, contending that the government's conduct against him had been "vexatious, frivolous, or in bad faith." and also raising the OMB Control Number Argument.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit rejected the OMB argument stating that
 
<blockquote>According to Lawrence, the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) required the Internal Revenue Service to display valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) numbers on its Form 1040.... Lawrence argues that the PRA by its terms prohibits the government from imposing a criminal penalty upon a citizen for the failure to complete a form where the information request at issue does not comply with the PRA... Yet Lawrence conceded at oral argument that no case from this circuit establishes such a proposition, and in fact Lawrence cites no caselaw from any jurisdiction that so holds. In contrast, the government referenced numerous cases supporting its position that the PRA does not present a defense to a criminal action for failure to file income taxes."<ref>Judgment, page 2, docket entry 39, March 26, 2007, ''United States v. Lawrence'', United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, No. 06-3205.</ref></blockquote>