- 22 -
remanding T.C. Memo. 1973-277. Here, petitioners have provided
no such further proof.
Delay of Deficiency Notice
In evaluating the evidence, we have remained cognizant of
the long period of time between the last of the taxable years in
issue, 1978, and the August 18, 1995, date that respondent mailed
the statutory notice of deficiency to petitioners. Before trial,
however, petitioners stipulated that they did not contest whether
the statutory period of limitations for assessing the
deficiencies at issue has expired. Mr. Weiss subsequently
testified that he had executed documents extending indefinitely
the time within which respondent might determine and assess taxes
for the years at issue. He has made no showing that he sought to
terminate these extensions. Accordingly, even if the issue of
delay were properly before us, petitioners would not prevail.
The appellate venue for this case would be the Court of Appeals
for the Second Circuit, which has stated: "the rule in this
circuit * * * is that a long delay will not vitiate an indefinite
extension absent notice from the taxpayer that he desires to
bring the extension to a close." Stenclik v. Commissioner, 907
F.2d 25, 28 (2d Cir. 1990), affg. T.C. Memo. 1989-516; see also
Mecom v. Commissioner, 101 T.C. 374, 392 (1993) (“‘A deal is
after all a deal, and fairness dictates that both parties adhere
to the provisions of the document they both voluntarily signed.’”
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011