- 4 -
In determining the validity of a consent to an extension of
the period of limitations, contract principles are important, and
we look to objective manifestations of mutual assent to determine
the existence of such an agreement. See sec. 6501(c)(4);
Schulman v. Commissioner, 93 T.C. 623, 639 (1989); Piarulle v.
Commissioner, 80 T.C. 1035, 1042 (1983).
In this case, respondent has adequately demonstrated that
the assessment periods of limitations for both 1992 and 1993 were
open at the time respondent mailed the notice of deficiency to
petitioners. For 1992, the credible evidence indicates that
petitioners signed the Form 872 on which the period of limitation
for 1992 was extended to April 15, 1997. This Form 872 was
mailed to petitioners and returned to respondent signed with
petitioners’ names. Petitioners do not deny that the signatures
thereon constitute their signatures.
For 1993, respondent’s notice of deficiency was obviously
timely, having been mailed to petitioners on April 14, 1997, a
number of days before expiration of the period of limitations for
1993.
We conclude that respondent’s notice of deficiency to
petitioners was timely as to both 1992 and 1993.
With regard to the underlying tax deficiencies and the
accuracy-related penalties determined by respondent against
petitioners for 1992, 1993, and 1994, we find for respondent, and
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011