-8-
general 3-year period of limitations specified in section 6501(a)
with the longer period of limitations in section 6501(c)(1)
(fraud). In the liability case, petitioner Joseph DelVecchio was
held to have filed fraudulent returns for both years. Thus, the
indefinite period of limitations for fraud provided for in
section 6501(c)(1) applies to both petitioners. See Vannaman v.
Commissioner, 54 T.C. 1011, 1018 (1970).
Form 872 does not affect the operation of section
6501(c)(1); it operates solely to extend the period of
limitations with respect to the general 3-year period of
limitations in section 6501(a). Once this Court found there was
fraud (with the attending indefinite period of limitations), Form
872 became inapplicable and assessment could be made at any time.
B. Any Prior Assessment Errors Were Harmless
Petitioners allege that respondent made his first assessment
on April 7, 1994, while the 90-day period for filing a petition
in response to the notice of deficiency was still open.
Petitioners argue that this procedural gaffe invalidates the
assessment of November 13, 2001. We disagree.
Even assuming arguendo that petitioners are correct on the
facts, no relief is available since a correct assessment was made
within the appropriate period of limitations. We therefore hold
any errors in assessments to be de minimis harmless error. Had
this issue been presented in the initial proceeding and had
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011