MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

The defendant, Leroy M. Schweitzer, stands charged with four counts of willfully failing to file income tax returns for the calendar years 1984 through 1987, in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 7203. Schweitzer has presented the court with a motion requesting the court to dismiss the Information filed against him, upon the ground the “Instructions booklet” prepared by the Internal Revenue Service, and which accompanied individual income tax Form 1040 for the referenced calendar years, failed to display an Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”) control number. Schweitzer contends the OMB control number is required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980, 44 U.S.C. §§ 3501-3520.1 The court, *1356however, finds the absence of an OMB control number on the Instructions booklet, prepared by the Internal Revenue Service to accompany individual income tax Form 1040 for the calendar years in issue, does not bar the prosecution of Schweitzer for willfully failing to file income tax returns.

In Dole v. United Steelworkers, 494 U.S. 26, 110 S.Ct. 929, 108 L.Ed.2d 23 (1990), the Supreme Court recognized that “[tjypical information collection requests include tax forms, medicare forms, financial loan applications, job applications, questionnaires, compliance reports and tax or business records.” 110 S.Ct. at 933. The holding in Dole casts doubt upon the continuing validity of those cases which had previously held that tax forms were not information collection requests subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act. See, U.S. v. Collins, 920 F.2d 619, 630 (10th Cir. 1990) (referring to U.S. v. Tedder, 787 F.2d 540 (10th Cir. 1986); Snyder v. IRS, 596 F.Supp. 240 (N.D.Ind. 1984); Cameron v. IRS, 593 F.Supp. 1540 (N.D.Ind. 1984), aff'd 773 F.2d 126 (7th Cir. 1985)). Even before Dole the persuasive effect of those decisions in this circuit was questionable. See, U.S. v. Smith, 866 F.2d at 1099, fn. 8 (characterizing the decisions in these cases is based on “conclusory reasoning”). In the aftermath of Dole, it is clear that tax forms, particularly Form 1040, are information collection requests subject to the prescriptions of the Paperwork Reduction Act. Schweitzer, however, suggests the analysis of Dole encompasses the Form 1040 instructions, since Form 1040 directly refers to the instructions, and the instructions are necessary to properly complete the Form 1040. Consequently, the instructions, Schweitzer submits, constitute an “information collection request" independent of the Form 1040.2

*1357The court has no quarrel with Schweitzer’s position that the Paperwork Reduction Act should not be construed as being applicable only to “forms”. Indeed, in its enactment of the Paperwork Reduction Act, Congress was concerned with the burden imposed upon individuals by record-keeping and data-gathering requirements established by federal agencies. See, Action Alliance of Senior Citizens of Philadelphia v. Bowen, 846 F.2d 1449 (D.C.Cir. 1988), vacated and remanded, 494 U.S. 1001, 110 S.Ct. 1329, 108 L.Ed.2d 469 (1990). Consequently, to the extent “instructions” dictated by an agency impose a burden upon an individual to maintain records or gather data, they would appear to be properly considered as “information collection requests”, within the purview of the Paperwork Reduction Act. The flaw in Schweitzer’s argument does not lie in this conclusion, but in his premise that the Form 1040 and the accompanying instructions booklet constitute separate information collection requests which must display different OMB control numbers.

If Schweitzer’s premise is accepted, then, arguably, his position would warrant serious consideration. Schweitzer fails, however, to present any support for his underlying premise. Rather, much of the argument presented by Schweitzer counsels against the acceptance of his premise.

First, Schweitzer impresses upon the court that the instructions are necessary to file a proper tax return. No taxpayer utilizing the Form 1040 would seriously dispute this conclusion. Second, Form 1040 on its face, makes no less than 24 references to the instructions booklet, and 40 references to other related schedules and forms. In fact, as Schweitzer accurately points out, the only portions of the Form 1040 which do not require the taxpayer to follow the instructions set forth in the booklet are the sections requiring the taxpayer to provide his name, address, social security number, signature and occupation. In sum, Schweitzer quite accurately suggests the blank Form 1040 is not susceptible to accurate completion without the instructions booklet. This court shares, what is the essence of Schweitzer’s position, that Form 1040 and the attending instructions booklet cannot be considered independent of one another but are, in fact, integral components of the same information collection request. In that vein, 26 C.F.R. § 1.6012-1(7) expressly provides:

Form 1040A may be filed only by those individuals entitled to use such form as provided by and in accordance with the instructions for such form.

Form 1040, as the defendant acknowledges, displays an OMB control number. That OMB control number satisfies the prescription of 44 U.S.C. § 3502 as it pertains to the information collection request of which the Form 1040 is a part. Schweitzer fails to present a cogent argument which convinces the court that either the spirit, or the letter of the Paperwork Reduction Act is not satisfied in regard to that information collection request that is comprised of the Form 1040 and attendant instructions booklet.3

Therefore, for the reasons set forth herein,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the motion to dismiss of the defendant, Leroy M. Schweitzer, be, and the same hereby is, DENIED.