- 34 -
delivery of it to an officer at his office. See Miton v. United
States, 105 F.2d 253 (5th Cir. 1939) (containing an extensive
summary of the meaning of the term “filing” and consequences
thereof); cf. sec. 7502 (timely mailing is timely filing). Based
on AVA’s substantial compliance with section 301.6231(a)(7)-
1T(e), Temporary Proced. & Admin. Regs., we find that the
September 30 letter was filed on September 30, 1988. The
September 30 letter was, therefore, effective on September 30,
1988, the day the AVA Form 872-P for 1985 was signed by Mr.
Schreiber.
e. AVA’s Other Arguments
AVA argues, even if the AVA Form 872-P for 1985 was validly
executed, Mr. Schreiber’s consent to extend the section 6229(a)
assessment period was a legal nullity because there never was a
meeting of the minds between the parties. AVA avers: “Behrens,
Schreiber and Wright were all unaware of respondent’s criminal
investigation of * * * [AMCOR] and themselves and would not have
executed the Forms 872-P if they had that knowledge.” We have
described respondent’s criminal investigation in Crop
Associates–1986, Frederick H. Behrens, Tax Matters Partner v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2000-216. AVA has failed to prove that
Mr. Schreiber was unaware of the state of that investigation on
September 30, 1988, or that, given that knowledge, he would have
refused to sign the AVA Form 872-P for 1985.
Page: Previous 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011