Joseph A. and Carol DelVecchio - Page 7

                                         -7-                                          
          therefore precluded respondent from assessing taxes once the                
          agreement set forth therein lapsed.  Petitioners contend that               
          assessment of the liability found in DelVecchio v. Commissioner,            
          supra, was improper in that it was made after the period agreed             
          upon in the Form 872.  Second, petitioners argue that respondent            
          made a nonjeopardy assessment in this case within the prohibited            
          90-day window following the notice of deficiency.  Petitioners              
          conclude that this alleged improper prior assessment invalidates            
          all subsequent assessments.5                                                
          A.   Form 872 Does Not Preclude Assessment                                  
               Petitioners argue that respondent is precluded from making             
          any assessments because all parties signed Form 872 and thereby             
          extended to December 31, 1992, the time to assess any Federal               
          income tax due for 1987 and 1988.  Petitioners urge that Form 872           
          constitutes a written agreement with the Commissioner and that              
          respondent was bound to assess all taxes (including any fraud               
          penalty) before December 31, 1992.  We disagree.                            
               Form 872 is a unilateral waiver by the taxpayer of the                 
          3-year period of limitations of section 6501(a).  See, e.g.,                
          Stange v. United States, 282 U.S. 270, 276 (1931); Schulman v.              
          Commissioner, 93 T.C. 623, 639 (1989).  Petitioners confuse the             


               5 Petitioners put forward other arguments, trying to assert            
          wrongdoing by respondent such as alteration of official                     
          documents.  We have considered all other arguments and have found           
          those not discussed to be meritless.                                        





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011