- 24 -                                         
          574 of a 632-page consolidated Federal income tax return filed by            
          Holdings, New Petroleum's parent corporation.  Moreover, in                  
          Badger Materials, we attributed the merger information contained             
          in the taxpayer's Federal income tax return to the agent                     
          conducting the income tax audit, not to an agent responsible for             
          an unrelated audit of a different kind of tax.                               
               Finally, although neither party addresses this point, we                
          note that the returns under audit herein for the taxable periods             
          of 1985 were New Petroleum's Quarterly Federal Excise Tax Returns            
          (Form 720).  On Form 720, there is a line which states that if               
          the taxpayer will not be liable for returns in succeeding                    
          quarters, then the word "FINAL" should be entered.  Had New                  
          Petroleum entered the word "FINAL" on the appropriate line, that             
          might have been sufficient to put respondent on notice of New                
          Petroleum's merger into Energy.  However, Energy's failure to                
          introduce into evidence New Petroleum's final 1991 Form 720 leads            
          us to infer that no such entry appears on the form.  See Wichita             
          Terminal Elevator Co. v. Commissioner, 6 T.C. 1158, 1165 (1946),             
          affd. 162 F.2d 513 (10th Cir. 1947).                                         
               Thus, based on the record and the facts discussed herein, we            
          hold that Energy is equitably estopped to deny that the                      
          limitations period for the taxable periods of 1985 was extended              
          properly under section 6501(c)(4).8                                          
          8    Even if we were to find that the error in the extension was             
          the result of mutual mistake, rather than any deliberate                     
          deception on petitioner's part, the Court has the power to reform            
                                                              (continued...)           
Page:  Previous   14   15   16   17   18   19   20   21   22   23   24   25   26   27   28   29   30   31   32   33   NextLast modified: May 25, 2011