- 12 -
and remanding T.C. Memo. 1987-296; Armes v. Commissioner, 448
F.2d 972, 974 (5th Cir. 1971), affg. in part, revg. in part and
remanding T.C. Memo. 1969-181; Mecom v. Commissioner, supra at
382; Adler v. Commissioner, supra at 540-541.
Respondent’s burden is met by the receipt into evidence of
one or more properly executed, facially valid, written agreements
extending the period of limitation on assessment along with
evidence that the notice of deficiency was mailed prior to the
end of the extended period. J.H. Rutter Rex Manufacturing Co. v.
Commissioner, supra at 1281; Mecom v. Commissioner, supra at 382-
383; Adler v. Commissioner, supra at 540. Once respondent makes
such a showing, the burden of going forward with the evidence
shifts back to petitioners to prove their contentions with
respect to agreements. J.H. Rutter Rex Manufacturing Co. v.
Commissioner, supra at 1281; Mecom v. Commissioner, supra at 383;
Adler v. Commissioner, supra at 541.
An agreement extending the period of limitation on
assessment is a unilateral waiver of a defense by a taxpayer; the
interpretation of the terms contained in the agreement is
governed by contract principles. Stange v. United States, 282
U.S. 270 (1931); Kronish v. Commissioner, 90 T.C. 684, 693
(1988); Piarulle v. Commissioner, 80 T.C. 1035, 1042 (1983). The
terms of the parties’ agreement are determined from their
objective manifestations of mutual assent as shown by their overt
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011