- 11 -
taxpayer. In Eversole v. Commissioner, supra at 57, the improper
party was the decedent’s widow and, formerly, executrix of his
estate. In contrast, petitioner argues, Mr. Berg was nothing
more than an “interloper”. We find this distinction
unpersuasive. Not only does it ignore that Mr. Berg was
petitioner’s counsel in a related case involving his 1981 and
1982 deficiencies, but petitioner’s argument completely ignores
our discussion of the law in Eversole.
According to petitioner, we should apply instead the holding
of Kirch v. United States, 83 AFTR 2d 99-2153, 99-1 USTC par.
50,452 (S.D. Ohio 1999). In Kirch, the taxpayers, also former
Elektra Hemisphere tax shelter investors, asserted that the
petition they filed with this Court, which we had dismissed for
lack of jurisdiction, failed to suspend the limitations period.
The taxpayers had filed the petition before the Commissioner’s
issuance of a notice of deficiency. Accordingly, the District
Court concluded that because the Commissioner had not issued a
notice of deficiency, the filing of the petition with this Court
had not placed a “proceeding in respect of the deficiency” on the
docket. Id.
Unlike Kirch, in the present case respondent issued a valid
notice of deficiency before Mr. Berg filed the petition.
Although petitioner did not authorize Mr. Berg to file the
petition, the petition nevertheless placed a “proceeding in
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