- 27 -
statute of limitations. See Lucas v. Pilliod Lumber Co., 281
U.S. 245, 249 (1930). Mr. Voyer’s signature on the AVA 1984 Form
1065 does not comply with section 6063, and it is not adequate to
constitute it a valid return.
(3) Miscellaneous
AVA also argues that (1) there was only a technical flaw in
the AVA 1984 Form 1065, (2) since the partners of AVA relied on
the AVA 1984 Form 1065, they ratified it, and (3) respondent
accepted the return, and, therefore, it was effective to start
the running of the period of limitations. None of those
arguments are persuasive.
f. Conclusion
We find that the AVA 1984 Form 1065 was not signed by any
partner, and, consequently, it was not a valid partnership
return. See Plunkett v. Commissioner, 41 B.T.A. 700, 711 (1940),
affd. 118 F.2d 644 (1st Cir. 1944). Therefore, AVA has failed to
satisfy the first element necessary for it to establish its
affirmative defense for 1984, the filing of the partnership
return, see Amesbury Apartments, Ltd. v. Commissioner, 95 T.C.
227, 240 (1990), and we must conclude that the AVA FPAA was
issued before expiration of the section 6229(a) assessment period
Page: Previous 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011