- 3 -
6501(c)(4) provides that before the expiration of the period of
limitations in section 6501(a), the parties may consent "in
writing to * * * [the] assessment after such time, [and] the tax
may be assessed at any time prior to the expiration of the period
agreed upon."
Petitioner acknowledges that he executed the consent to
extend the period of limitations. He maintains, however, that
the consent he executed is invalid because it is an "adhesion
contract". According to petitioner an adhesion contract "is not
binding where there is in fact some obvious differences in power,
and of course, differences in knowledge". He maintains that
respondent was the "stronger party [and] gave me no choice."
This is whimsical nonsense.
While a consent to extend the period of limitations is not a
contract, contract principles are relevant because a written
agreement is necessary. See Piarulle v. Commissioner, 80 T.C.
1035, 1042 (1983). It may be that if petitioner had not executed
the consent, respondent would have issued the notice of
deficiency at an earlier date, but petitioner was under no duress
to execute the consent. See Ballard v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo.
1987-471. Petitioner could have refused, respondent would have
issued a notice of deficiency, and petitioner presumably would
have been before this Court. Rather, he and respondent agreed to
extend the period of limitations so that petitioner could obtain
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011