As I've noted so often over the years, I am not a fan of regulatory double-speak -- which is that twisting of English into something that is bloated and obtuse but always sounds oh so precise.  For example, is it just me or what but doesn't this strike you as a classic:

Apparently, all that this registered person did was "altered" an IRS form by "affixing invalid copies" of signatures.  Altered? Affixing?  Whatever happened to the old-fashioned  "fraud" or "forgery"? 

When I think of "altering" something, it means that I take something that exists and shorten/lenghten it.  For example, you alter a hemline. However, you are not altering someone's signature when you forge it or when you submit a prior iteration of that signature as if it were new and authorized.  That may be fraud or forgery but it sure as hell isn't a mere alteration -- nor is it simply affixing an invalid copy. 

I mean, seriously, if I make a copy of the Mona Lisa and sneak into the Louvre and remove the original and replace it with my forgery, would anyone suggest that all that I had done was altered the original and affixed an invalid copy onto the museum wall?