- 12 -
to overcome the statutory presumption that he signed the
consent.3
Circumstantial evidence reinforces our finding that
petitioner executed the consent. Petitioner first asserted in
1995, some 12 years after it was signed, that his signature on
the consent was forged. During that 12-year period, he hired
four sets of professional advisers to deal with the IRS’s
examination of his income tax liabilities. We do not believe
that, during the 12 years that followed the explicit waiver of
the period of limitations, none of petitioner’s professional
advisers consulted with him concerning the validity of that
waiver. We believe, rather, that they did so, and that they
learned from petitioner that he had signed the consent. Had
petitioner told them otherwise, they would have sought to
terminate respondent’s proceedings against petitioner for 1980
3 The Court permitted petitioner to proffer additional
testimony of Ms. Marsh as to the facts and reasons for her
conclusion. In the proffer, she asserted specific concerns about
the signature appearing on the consent. Specifically, she noted
characteristics of the loop on the “L” of petitioner’s first
name, the angle of the bottom of the “S” in petitioner’s middle
initial, and the absence of a loop at the end of the “short”
version of petitioner’s signature. These concerns, even if
properly presented, would not have changed our conclusion. The
Court’s own examination of the exemplars indicates that the
presence or absence of the questioned characteristics was not
confined to the signature on the consent. The Court's
examination of the evidence reinforces its decision to accept the
conclusion of respondent’s expert--that is, that the evidence of
record does not permit a finding that petitioner did not sign the
consent.
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011