- 12 -
made before the expiration of the period previously agreed upon.
Id.
The bar of the statute of limitations on assessment is an
affirmative defense, and the party raising it must specifically
plead it and carry the burden of proving its applicability.
Rules 39, 142(a). If the taxpayer makes a prima facie case
proving the filing date of his or her income tax return and the
expiration of the statutory period prior to the mailing of the
notice of deficiency, the burden of going forward with the
evidence shifts to respondent. Robinson v. Commissioner, 57 T.C.
735, 737 (1972). Respondent may discharge this burden by showing
that the parties executed a written consent, valid on its face,
extending the period of limitations for assessment and that the
notice of deficiency was mailed prior to the expiration of the
extended period. Adler v. Commissioner, 85 T.C. 535, 541 (1985).
If respondent introduces an apparently valid consent and the
taxpayer asserts that such consent is ineffective, the burden of
going forward again shifts back to the taxpayer to affirmatively
show the invalidity of the written consent. Id. The burden of
proof; i.e., the burden of ultimate persuasion, however, always
remains with the party who pleads that the assessment is barred
by the statute of limitations. Id. at 540.
Petitioner timely filed his 1998 and 1999 income tax
returns, and the period of limitations with respect to those
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011