- 11 -
indicates that petitioner and respondent may have intended to
enter into an agreement but had not agreed to rescind the notices
of deficiency before the filing of the petition. Indeed, counsel
for petitioner made it clear that he would not consider the
notices of deficiency to be rescinded unless respondent reduced
the agreement to writing. When no written agreement was
forthcoming, counsel for petitioner filed a petition on
petitioner's behalf with the Court. Under the circumstances, we
hold that the parties did not agree to rescind the notices of
deficiency for 1994 and 1995.
Our holding on this point is not affected by Revenue Agent
Mayer's June 3, 1998, letter stating that petitioner's case had
"been changed from status 24 (90 Day) to status 12 (under
examination)". See Hesse v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1997-333;
Slattery v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1995-274 (returning a case
file from the 90-day section to the examination division for
purposes of a conference is not tantamount to a rescission).
Petitioner also argues that he should be permitted to
withdraw his petition and then execute the Form 8626 that Revenue
Agent Mayer forwarded to him on June 10, 1998. However, it is
well settled that the filing of a timely petition contesting a
valid notice of deficiency invests the Court with jurisdiction to
resolve finally the taxpayer's liability for the year in issue.
See Estate of Ming v. Commissioner, 62 T.C. 519, 521 (1974). A
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011