Matthew M. Perdue - Page 10




                                       - 10 -                                         
          based on self-assessment and serve "to ensure that passage of               
          time will not prevent collection of the tax unless the Government           
          has been informed by the taxpayer that there is, or might be, tax           
          liability".  Lucia v. United States, 474 F.2d 565, 570 (5th Cir.            
          1973); see Bresson v. Commissioner, supra at 189 ("Federal                  
          revenue law requires national application that is not displaced             
          by variations in State law").                                               
               Petitioner's post-hearing memorandum includes an alternative           
          allegation that the Texas statute of limitations is controlling             
          in this case on the ground that the validity of the disputed                
          power of attorney affects property rights and obligations between           
          petitioner and Ms. Cade.  Petitioner fails to cite any direct               
          authority in support of this argument.                                      
          We are not persuaded that the disputed power of attorney                    
          vested petitioner with any cognizable property rights.  Notably,            
          the power of attorney did not expressly authorize petitioner to             
          make gifts on Ms. Cade's behalf, nor did it provide for the                 
          transfer of ownership of any specific property to petitioner.               
          See Patch v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1980-11.  The power of                
          attorney, on its face, merely creates an agency relationship                
          between petitioner and Ms. Cade.  See id.                                   
               Petitioner filed his tax returns for the years in issue on             
          October 18, 1995.  Consistent with the preceding discussion, we             
          hold that respondent had 3 years from that date to issue a notice           






Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011