- 13 -
liabilities for 1997.11 This conclusion may seem harsh, but the
purpose of the statute of limitations is “to promote justice by
preventing surprises through the revival of claims that have been
allowed to slumber until evidence has been lost, memories have
faded, and witnesses have disappeared.” Order of R.R.
Telegraphers v. Ry. Express Agency, Inc., 321 U.S. 342, 348-349
(1944). It must be noted that statutes of limitations in the
Internal Revenue Code do not operate solely against taxpayers.
For example, taxpayers may plead the expiration of a period of
limitations under section 6501 when the Commissioner fails to act
within the prescribed assessment period.
4. Conclusion
There is no basis in the record for the Court to conclude
that respondent abused his discretion with respect to any of the
matters in issue. Accordingly, for the reasons discussed above,
respondent’s determination to proceed by levy with the collection
of petitioner’s outstanding liability for 1997 should be
sustained, and we so hold.
We have considered all of petitioner’s arguments and
contentions that are not discussed herein relating to whether
respondent may proceed with collection with respect to
petitioner’s outstanding liability for 1997, and we conclude
11 As we indicated earlier, it appears that respondent has
accounted for all of these payments and has used them to offset
petitioner’s tax liabilities.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011