Watson v. Abington Township

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• determining late filed returns fit into the definition of “return” and adopting Colsen’s interpretation of Beard test
• holding timeliness is not an applicable filing requirement
• “Thus, if timeliness is part of ‘applicable filing requirements’ ..., a late-filed return is not a ‘return’ for clause (ii
• “Such a result is nonsensical because clause (ii) specifically contemplates the dischargeability of some taxes based on late filed returns.”
• “This approach is consistent with [Beard], the case from which the four-prong test originates.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).