Bernice M. and Stanley M. Ulanoff - Page 36




                                       - 36 -                                         

               In view of the foregoing, we sustain respondent's                      
          determination that petitioner is liable for the addition to tax             
          for valuation overstatement under section 6659 for each of the              
          years in issue.                                                             
          Other Matters                                                               
               Petitioner's final contention to be considered is that                 
          respondent is precluded from making an assessment for the taxable           
          year 1982 because respondent initially issued a no-change letter            
          for that year.                                                              
               Petitioner cites no cases in support of his position.  We              
          observe that petitioner's position is clearly contrary to well-             
          established law that issuance of a no-change letter generally               
          does not preclude respondent from subsequently issuing a notice             
          of deficiency.  See Opine Timber Co. v. Commissioner, 64 T.C. 700           
          (1975), affd. without published opinion 552 F.2d 368 (5th Cir.              
          1977); Lawton v. Commissioner, 16 T.C. 725, 727 (1951); see also            
          Collins v. Commissioner, 61 T.C. 693, 700-701 (1974); Fitzpatrick           
          v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1995-548.                                       
               For respondent's no-change letter to be binding, petitioner            
          must show the elements of estoppel.  See Fitzpatrick                        
          v. Commissioner, supra.  However, petitioner does not allege or             
          argue estoppel, nor does the record provide any basis for such a            
          claim.  Further, the no-change letter does not in any manner                
          constitute a closing agreement.  See sec. 7121; sec. 301.7121-              
          1(d), Proced. & Admin. Regs.                                                



Page:  Previous  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  30  31  32  33  34  35  36  37  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011