- 5 -
contend that respondent failed to mail it to their last known
address.
In support of their argument that respondent should be
estopped from claiming that the petition for 1985 was not filed
timely, petitioners claim that they did not file a petition
sooner because respondent advised them to have the audit reopened
instead of filing a petition with this Court. Although the
argument is not clearly articulated by petitioners, apparently
they claim that respondent had rescinded the notice of deficiency
under section 6212(d) prior to the date they were required to
file a petition with this Court.
Section 6212(d) provides that the Secretary may, with the
consent of the taxpayer, rescind any notice of deficiency mailed
to the taxpayer. The taxpayer has no right to file a petition
with the Tax Court based on a rescinded notice of deficiency.
Sec. 6212(d). Section 6212(d) requires mutual consent by the
Secretary and the taxpayer to effect a rescission of a notice of
deficiency.2 See Slattery v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1995-274.
Documents submitted by the parties show that in 1989
respondent reopened the 1985 audit at petitioners' request and
that this second phase of the audit was not completed for several
2 The Internal Revenue Service has provided guidance to
taxpayers wishing to consent to the rescission of a notice of
deficiency. See Rev. Proc. 88-17, 1988-1 C.B. 692. This revenue
procedure advises the taxpayer to request Form 8626, Agreement to
Rescind Notice of Deficiency, which becomes effective when
executed on behalf of the Commissioner.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011