- 7 - delegate and the taxpayer (or the taxpayer's representative). Rev. Proc. 98-54, 1998-43 I.R.B. 7. This revenue procedure also states that the Service will not rescind a notice of deficiency when the 90-day period has expired without the taxpayer’s filing a petition with the Court. Petitioners in the present case never filed a Form 8626. They argue that the January 19, 1999, letter written by their accountant to respondent provides their consent to the rescission. The letter lacks the signature of the Commissioner's delegate. In their opposition to respondent's motion to dismiss, petitioners argue that because respondent did not reply to this letter, the statements are deemed admitted, thereby causing a rescission of the notice of deficiency. Petitioners have no valid legal basis for this contention. It is difficult for us to understand how petitioners could honestly believe there was a rescission, because respondent repeatedly notified petitioners on all correspondence that subsequent discussions or findings would not have any effect on the 90-day period in which petitioners could petition for a redetermination. Even if petitioners actually believed there was a rescission, "the rescission of a notice of deficiency is not a function of the taxpayer's subjective belief. Rather, the rescission of a notice of deficiency requires mutual consent by the Commissioner and the taxpayer, and such mutual consent mustPage: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011