- 13 -
respondent and petitioner, and notice of the same to Hibiscus,
within the meaning of the final sentence of section 1.1502-77(a),
Income Tax Regs. Respondent contends in the alternative that,
regardless of the applicability of section 1.1502-77(a), Income
Tax Regs., the Court should conclude that the period of
limitations did not expire in this case on the grounds that:
(1) The disputed Forms 872 should be enforced to the extent they
reflect the parties' mutual assent to extend the period of
limitations; and (2) petitioner subsequently ratified the Forms
872 executed on behalf of Hibiscus.
Relying on cases such as Barbados #7 Ltd. v. Commissioner,
92 T.C. 804 (1989); Halper v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1997-58;
and Malone & Hyde, Inc. v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1992-661,
petitioner counters that respondent's reliance on the parties'
mutual assent and/or the doctrine of ratification is misplaced.
Petitioner, in its written statement filed subsequent to the
hearing herein, states:
Respondent's arguments as to mutual assent and
ratification are based upon the intent of the parties.
That is, respondent asserts that the consents were
intended to extend the period of limitations for the
separate tax liabilities of both members of the
Hibiscus consolidated group, that Hibiscus' authority
was not disavowed by petitioner, and that the actions
of Hibiscus and petitioner taken upon the assumption
that the necessary authority existed amount to
ratification of the consents. However, the issue
presented by the instant motions is not one of intent,
but instead is whether Hibiscus at the time of its
execution of the consents was vested with the authority
to do so. Petitioner submits that as a result of
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011