- 19 -
should be charged with knowledge of the information contained in
these documents.
Respondent contends that the revenue agents and Appeals
officers involved in the WPT cases could not have been expected
to learn of New Petroleum's merger from the information submitted
to the Austin Service Center in Holding's 1991 Form 1120. For
income tax purposes, New Petroleum was a member of a consolidated
group headed by Holdings. Accordingly, the statement of merger
and certificate of merger which New Petroleum filed were attached
to Holdings' Form 1120 as pages 573 and 574, respectively, of a
632-page consolidated Federal income tax return. The income tax
return was filed under the name and EIN of Holdings, which was
different from Energy's EIN. Moreover, neither page 573 nor page
574 contained Energy's EIN. Thus, respondent contends that the
computer transcripts requested by the WPT agents using New
Petroleum's EIN did not reflect the changes in its corporate
status shown on Holdings' Form 1120.
We agree with respondent. It is stipulated that the Austin
Service Center received Holdings' Form 1120 on September 8, 1992,
after the first of the three Forms 872 was signed. However, an
inspection of the actual Form 1120 reveals that the return was
not surveyed by the income tax examination group until January
14, 1995, nearly 18 months after the last consent in issue was
signed. Thus, based on the facts discussed herein, we shall not
attribute knowledge of New Petroleum's merger, which may have
been acquired by revenue agents conducting an unrelated income
Page: Previous 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011