CURIAM. In this appeal from a decision of the tax court, Michael Dodge challenges the court’s assessment of penalties under 26 U.S.C. §§ 6651(a)(1) and 6654 for the 2002 tax year. After careful review, see Estate of Korby v. Comm’r, 471 F.3d 848, 852 (8th Cir.2006) (standards of review), we reject as frivolous Dodge’s effort to avoid tax liability by claiming that the Form 1040 does not comply with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), see Lewis v. Comm’r, 523 F.3d 1272, 1277 (10th Cir.2008) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Patridge, 507 F.3d 1092,
holding that the use of the written form is mandatory and that failure to use the written form as mandated is reversible error holding that form 1040 complies with pra holding that application of an amortization provision is constitutional as long as it complies with renton holding that once consent to settlement agreement is withdrawn agreement can only be enforced as a binding contract that complies with rule 11 as established by proper pleading and proof holding a form 1040 is not a return if it has no effect under the internal revenue code