Domer L. Ishler - Page 35

                                        - 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  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011