Robert H. Golden and Judith A.Golden - Page 9

                                        - 9 -                                         
          petitioners from now disputing the amounts of the deficiencies or           
          the timeliness of the statutory notice in this collection action.           
          See Newstat v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2004-208.                           
          Period of Limitations on Collection                                         
               Petitioners argue that even if the period of limitations on            
          assessment had not expired when the notice was issued, or the               
          issue is precluded from dispute here, respondent’s proposed                 
          collection action is outside the period of limitations on                   
          collection.                                                                 
               Section 6502, Collection After Assessment, provides that               
          where an assessment has been timely made, the tax may be                    
          collected by levy or proceeding that is begun “within 10 years              
          after the assessment of the tax”.  The Forms 4340 show that the             
          stipulated deficiencies entered by the Court’s decision of                  
          February 7, 1994, were assessed by the IRS 92 days later, on May            
          10, 1994.  After a notice of deficiency is mailed, the running of           
          the period of limitations on assessment is suspended until the              
          decision of the Tax Court becomes final, after 90 days without an           
          appeal, and for 60 days thereafter.  Sec. 6503; see also secs.              
          7481, 7483.1                                                                



          1Although not specifically framed by petitioners, their                     
          general argument that “the statute of limitations on assessment             
          had run” could subsume the argument that the assessments after              
          entry of decision were untimely.  As can be seen from the                   
          pertinent dates, the assessments were in fact timely made.                  




Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011