▁above , ▁tax ▁protest ers ▁have ▁repeatedly ▁lit ig ated ▁several ▁variations ▁of ▁the ▁" OM B ▁control ▁number ▁argument " ▁without ▁success . ▁See ▁Mc D oug all ▁v . ▁Commission er ▁( tax p ayer ' s ▁argument — that ▁the ▁ 1 9 8 7 ▁Form ▁ 1 0 4 0 ▁fails ▁to ▁display ▁an ▁O MB ▁control ▁number — was ▁rejected ▁by ▁the ▁Court , ▁with ▁the ▁Court ▁stating ▁that ▁the ▁ 1 9 8 7 ▁Form ▁ 1 0 4 0 ▁does ▁contain ▁the ▁O MB ▁control ▁number , ▁in ▁upper ▁right ▁corner ▁of ▁form ; ▁tax p ayer ' s ▁argument — that ▁Form ▁ 1 0 4 0 ▁la cks ▁the ▁Priv acy ▁Act ▁and ▁P aper work ▁Red u ction ▁Act ▁notice — was ▁rejected ▁by ▁the ▁Court , ▁with ▁the ▁Court ▁not ing ▁that ▁the ▁statement ▁appears ▁in ▁the ▁instructions ▁for ▁the ▁form ▁and ▁further ▁not ing ▁that ▁a ▁failure ▁to ▁comp ly ▁with ▁the ▁P aper work ▁Red u ction ▁Act ▁would ▁not ▁invalid ate ▁an ▁I RS ▁form , ▁as ▁the ▁" m and ate ▁for ▁collect ing ▁Federal ▁income ▁tax ▁information ▁comes ▁from ▁Congress "); ▁United ▁States ▁v . ▁B ark er ▁( tax p ayer ' s ▁argument — that ▁I RS ▁forms ▁must ▁carry ▁valid ▁control ▁numbers ▁from ▁the ▁Office ▁of ▁Management ▁and ▁Bud get ▁to ▁be ▁valid — was ▁rejected ); ▁Sal berg ▁v . ▁United ▁States ▁( tax p ayer ' s ▁argument — that ▁although ▁the