- 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 must
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011