- 6 -
years. However, in the record there is no documentation of an
agreement by the parties to rescind the 1985 notice of
deficiency. By itself, the reopening of the 1985 audit in 1989,
well after the running of the 90-day period, did not effect a
rescission. See Slattery v. Commissioner, supra. The record
here does not indicate that respondent ever considered rescinding
the notice of deficiency or ever suggested to petitioners the
possibility of rescission. The record does not support the
conclusion that petitioners somehow were misled into thinking
there had been a rescission of the deficiency notice. In a
letter to respondent dated October 10, 1991, petitioners
themselves indicate that they were warned that continued efforts
to achieve an administrative resolution would not suspend the 90-
day period. Petitioners wrote: "we contacted [the Internal
Revenue Service] person listed on the [1985 notice of
deficiency,] . . . [and he] informed us, that we did not have to
go to court, for the IRS could resolve the matter, but we had 90
days to contest the deficiency in court." (Emphasis added.)
Petitioners' own statement summarizes the circumstances of this
record: after the mailing of the notice of deficiency
petitioners urged further administrative consideration of the
case. Respondent's representatives agreed to conduct such
further review but expressly warned petitioners that they had
only 90 days to file a petition with the Tax Court, regardless of
any administrative review. The circumstances are inconsistent
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011