13 (1978), reprinted in 1978 U.S.C.C.A.N. 5787, 5800. The exception also embodied the bankruptcy policy that “[i]n general, tax claims which are nondischargeable, despite a lack of priority, are those to whose staleness the debtor contributed by some wrong-doing or serious fault.” S.Rep. No. 95-989, at 14, reprinted in 1978 U.S.C.C.A.N. 5787, 5800. After Congress enacted § 523(a)(1)(B), several courts considered whether a failure to file reports similar to the one § 13-409 requires constituted the failure to file “a return,” such that the corresponding tax liability would be excepted from discharge, and almost all of them determined that § 523(a)(1)(B) did not except the tax liability from discharge. Compare Dahmer v. United States (In re Dahmer), 336 B.R. 784, 789 (Bankr.W.D.Mo.2006) (<HOLDING>), State of Cal. Franchise Tax Bd. v. Jerauld
holding that a binding settlement on a tax liability must follow the requirements of the tax code which include the execution of a closing agreement holding that the united states court of federal claims does not have jurisdiction to enter declaratory judgment that taxpayers were not liable for any type of federal income tax or to issue injunction permanently removing the tax liens on property and levies on wages holding that taxpayers failure to follow state requirement that he report change in federal income tax did not except state tax liability from discharge holding the rule against taxpayer standing applies both to federal taxpayers and state taxpayers challenging state tax or spending decisions simply by virtue of their status as state taxpayers holding that failure to report a change in federal taxable income as required by state law excepted state tax liability from discharge