Diesel Performance, Inc. - Page 8




                                        - 8 -                                         

               Petitioner next argues that the period of limitations under            
          section 6501 bars the assessment and collection of the deficiency           
          in income tax for the tax year ending June 30, 1994.                        
          Petitioner's amended return for the tax year ending June 30,                
          1992, was filed on March 25, 1994.  According to section 6501,              
          petitioner argues, the period of limitations for the tax year               
          ending June 30, 1992, expired September 15, 1995.                           
               An amended return, even if accepted by the IRS, is                     
          considered a mere supplement, and the original return is used for           
          purposes of determining the period of limitations on assessment.            
          See Zellerbach Paper Co. v. Helvering, 293 U.S. 172 (1934).                 
          Therefore, petitioner is correct in that generally the period of            
          limitations for the tax year ending June 30, 1992, would expire             
          on September 15, 1995; however, the tax year in issue for which a           
          deficiency was determined ended on June 30, 1994.  Respondent is            
          not barred from assessment and collection of a deficiency in                
          income tax for the tax year ending June 30, 1994, by the period             
          of limitations.                                                             
               Next, petitioner argues that the duty of consistency is                
          applicable in this case.  We may exercise equitable principles so           
          that the duty of consistency applies in this Court, see LeFever             
          v. Commissioner, 103 T.C. 525, 541 (1994), affd. 100 F.3d 778               
          (10th Cir. 1996); however, it does not apply to the facts of this           
          case.     The duty of consistency doctrine prevents a taxpayer              





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011