- 35 -
On December 16, 1998, the United States withdrew its motions
to enforce the SCB and HSBC summonses.
3. Petitioners’ Contentions
Petitioners contend that section 7609(e) does not suspend
the period of limitations here because of defects in the SCB
summons. We disagree. A District Court has jurisdiction to
decide the merits of a petition to quash summons. Sec.
7609(h)(1). Petitioners may not collaterally attack the New York
District Court’s proceeding in this Court. See Shaheen v.
Commissioner, 62 T.C. 359, 364-365 (1974); Roberson v.
Commissioner, 41 T.C. 577, 581 (1964).
Petitioners also contend that, because the parties agreed
that applying for letters rogatory was the proper procedure for
seeking information and documents from SCB and HSBC, the
stipulation agreed to on March 24, 1992, was the final resolution
of the SCB and HSBC summons dispute and ended the tolling of the
period of limitations. We disagree that the stipulation ended
the SCB summons dispute for purposes of section 7609(e)(2)(B).
The enforcement of the SCB and HSBC summonses remained pending in
the New York District Court until December 16, 1998, when that
court entered a stipulation in which the United States withdrew
its motion to enforce the SCB summons.
The deficiency notice was mailed to TCM on May 12, 1999,
which is 147 days after the date of the final resolution of SCB's
Page: Previous 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011