- 22 -
subsequent willingness to execute extensions to the period of
limitations do not indicate a willful failure to cooperate.
Like the taxpayer in Gutierrez v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo.
1995-252, affd. in part and revd. and remanded on other issues
without published opinion 105 F.3d 651 (5th Cir. 1996), Mark was
irresponsible and heedless in his actions. But the record is
bereft of meaningful badges of fraud other than a failure to file
itself and fails to support even a strong suspicion of fraudulent
intent. Drieborg v. Commissioner, 225 F.2d at 219-220; Axelrod
v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1982-92, affd. without published
opinion 711 F.2d 1062 (9th Cir. 1983).
2. Other Issues Bearing on Liabilities for Additions to Tax
i. Period of Limitations
Preliminary to determining whether petitioners are liable
for additions to tax in the alternative, we briefly address
whether respondent timely issued the notice of deficiency to
petitioners within the statutory period of limitations. Unless
an exception applies, as in the case of a fraudulent return, sec.
6501(c)(1), or where no tax return is filed, sec. 6501(c)(3), the
IRS must assess an income tax within 3 years after the taxpayer
files a return, sec. 6501(a). The taxpayer and the IRS may agree
to extend this period by executing a written agreement prior to
the expiration of the period of limitations. Sec. 6501(c)(4).
In deciding that the statutory period for assessing or collecting
a tax deficiency has expired, this Court decides on the merits
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011