- 23 -
LARO, J., concurring: I agree with the majority's holding
that the period of limitations does not prevent petitioners from
recovering overpayments of their 1991 and 1992 income taxes. I
write separately, however, to set forth my view as to why this is
so.
The Court's disposition of this case turns on our answer to
the following question that evolves from the text of section
6501(c)(4): "before the expiration of the time prescribed in
this section for the assessment of any tax imposed by this title
* * *, [did] both the Secretary and the taxpayer[s] * * *
[consent] in writing to its assessment after such time"? Like
the majority and Judges Chabot and Foley in concurrence, I
conclude that the Commissioner and petitioners both did.
Longstanding Supreme Court precedent provides that the term
"agreement" as used in section 6501(c)(4) does not require that a
taxpayer and the Commissioner enter into an agreement that meets
the formal requirements of a contract under applicable law. See
Stange v. United States, 282 U.S. 270, 276 (1931); Florsheim
Bros. Drygoods Co. v. United States, 280 U. S. 453, 466 (1930).
Section 6501(c)(4) simply mandates that the Commissioner and the
taxpayer execute a written document that allows the former to
assess tax against the latter after the statutory period that
would otherwise apply. In the instant case, Form 5213 is that
written document. Petitioners prepared Form 5213, and they
Page: Previous 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011