- 20 -
attributable to fraud; consequently, ACT’s 1988 Federal income
tax return was false and fraudulent. See Forehand v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1993-618. On brief, petitioner concedes
that he is collaterally estopped from challenging the decision in
Association Cable TV, Inc. Accordingly, because no statute of
limitations bars assessment against ACT, none bars assessment
against petitioner. See Pert v. Commissioner, 105 T.C. 370, 378
(1995); Bartmer Automatic Self Serv. Laundry v. Commissioner, 35
T.C. 317, 322 (1960).
Petitioner argues that the Florida limitations period is
applicable and bars respondent from proceeding against
petitioner. Petitioner’s argument is without merit. “It is well
settled that the United States is not bound by state statutes of
limitation * * * in enforcing its rights.” United States v.
Summerlin, 310 U.S. 414, 416 (1940); see United States v. Fernon,
640 F.2d 609, 612 (5th Cir. 1981) (Florida statute of limitations
did not apply); United States v. West Tex. State Bank, 357 F.2d
198, 201 (5th Cir. 1966); Bresson v. Commissioner, 111 T.C. 172,
184 (1998), affd. 213 F.3d 1173 (9th Cir. 2000). Although State
law determines the nature and extent of property rights in
applying a Federal revenue act, Federal law determines the
consequences of those rights. See United States v. National Bank
of Commerce, 472 U.S. 713, 722-723 (1985); Bresson v.
Commissioner, supra at 189.
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011