Richard M. Kriske - Page 3




                                        - 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