Mark N. and Marla R. Kantor - Page 24

                                               - 24 -                                                 
            Commissioner, 19 B.T.A. 212, 221 (1930), affd. 58 F.2d 566 (8th                           
            Cir. 1932), shifting the burden back to petitioners to                                    
            affirmatively show the invalidity of those written consents.                              
            Crown Willamette Paper Co. v. McLaughlin, 81 F.2d 365, 367 (9th                           
            Cir. 1936); Concrete Engg. Co. v. Commissioner, supra at 221.                             
            Petitioners always retain the ultimate burden of persuasion                               
            because they raised the issue that the assessment is barred by                            
            the statute of limitations.  Kronish v. Commissioner, 90 T.C.                             
            684, 692 (1988).                                                                          
                  Petitioners raised two arguments.  First, they questioned                           
            whether the date next to their signatures on the first Form 872                           
            consent, signed on July 24, 1990, is in the same handwriting as                           
            that in the later two consents.  Their argument in that respect                           
            appears to be that the consent was not properly executed and was                          
            therefore invalid.  However, petitioners have produced no                                 
            evidence other than their vague allegations about the differences                         
            in handwriting to support their contention.  We find that the                             
            consent appears regular on its face and in accordance with the                            
            law.  In the absence of contrary evidence, we find it to be                               
            valid.  Concrete Engg. Co. v. Commissioner, supra at 221.                                 
                  Next, petitioners allege that respondent's Appeals officer                          
            purportedly agreed with petitioners to drop the fraud penalty in                          
            return for extending the period of limitations.  The record shows                         
            that the parties never reached a formal closing agreement, sec.                           
            7121; sec. 601.202, Statement of Procedural Rules, and                                    




Page:  Previous  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011