- 28 -
Petitioner further argues that respondent’s position makes
section 6229(b)(3)26 superfluous because an extension under
6501(c)(4) extends the section 6501 period for all purposes.
Section 6229(b)(3) is not superfluous. A valid extension
pursuant to section 6501(c)(4) operates to extend the period of
limitations on assessments and collections with regard to only
those taxes that both the Secretary and the taxpayer explicitly
agree to in writing. See sec. 6501(c)(4); see also Pursell v.
Commissioner, 38 T.C. 263, 278 (1962), affd. 315 F.2d 629 (3d
Cir. 1963). Contract principles are pivotal in determining the
existence and scope of that agreement because section 6501(c)(4)
requires a written agreement. See Mecom v. Commissioner, 101
T.C. 374, 384 (1993), affd. 40 F.3d 385 (5th Cir. 1994). Section
6229(b)(3) imposes a default rule for purposes of determining
whether an agreement encompasses assessments that are
attributable to partnership items. It provides that any
agreement under section 6501(c)(4) shall apply to partnership-
level adjustments only if the agreement expressly provides that
it applies to tax attributable to partnership items. See sec.
6229(b)(3). We also note that this limitation on the scope of an
agreement under section 6501(c)(4) is meaningless if, as
petitioner argues, section 6501 has no application to the period
26TRA sec. 1233(c), 111 Stat. 1023-1024, amended Code sec.
6229(b). Prior to the amendment, sec. 6229(b)(3) was sec.
6229(b)(2).
Page: Previous 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011