- 8 -
for the period during which the Secretary is prohibited
from making the assessment[10] * * * (and in any event,
if a proceeding in respect of the deficiency is placed
on the docket of the Tax Court, until the decision of
the Tax Court becomes final), and for 60 days
thereafter.
Sec. 6503(a)(1).
Petitioner contends that the petition Mr. Berg filed and we
dismissed in Martin I (hereinafter referred to as the petition)
was an “erroneous filing”, which did not place “a proceeding in
respect of a deficiency” on our docket. Petitioner alleges two
specific “filing errors” with respect to the petition: (1)
Petitioner lacked knowledge of the filing and did not consent to
it, and (2) the petition, although purportedly filed on both
petitioner and Amilu’s behalf, contained only a copy of Amilu’s
notice. According to petitioner, these “filing errors” rendered
the petition a “nullity” or “materially defective”, and,
therefore, the filing of the petition did not suspend the
limitations period.
A. The Effect of an Unauthorized Petition on the
Limitations Period
Petitioner contends that a petition filed without the
taxpayer’s authorization or ratification, and later dismissed,
has “no effect on” the limitations period. According to
petitioner, Mr. Berg was a “mere interloper” and, therefore, did
10The prohibited assessment period referred to in sec.
6503(a)(1) includes the time during which the taxpayer may file a
petition with this Court. See sec. 6213(a).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011