although we expressly do not decide, that the one-day-late rule is incorrect. We can do this because, even under this assumption, Justice’s tax debts are nevertheless non-dis-chargeable for the following reasons. Thus, we assume arguendo that the applicable filing requirements Congress envisioned in the hanging paragraph do not include filing deadlines. Even if late-filed tax documents can sometimes qualify as returns, the BAPCPA definition also demands that a return satisfy “the requirements of applicable nonbankruptcy law.” Both parties to this case, and all courts to consider the issue, agree that the term “applicable nonbankruptcy law” incorporates the Beard test. See, e.g., In re Martin, 500 B.R. 1, 8 (D.Colo.2013) aff'd sub nom. In re Mallo, 774 F.3d 1313 (10th Cir.2014) (<HOLDING>); In re Rhodes, 498 B.R. 357, 367
holding that the board as constituted on the date that the original complaint was filed is the board for purposes of evaluating whether demand is required or excused holding that the relevant time of inquiry is the date of the filing of the complaint holding that the beard test constituted the applicable nonbankruptcy law1  pursuant to the first sentence of the hanging paragraph provided by the bapcpa  for purposes of determining whether a filing is a return under  523a1b holding that the ordinary observer test should be the sole test for determining whether a design patent has been infringed holding that in determining whether there has been a substantial contribution pursuant to section 503b3d the applicable test is whether the efforts of the applicant resulted in an actual and demonstrable benefit to the debt ors estate and the creditors