- 18 -
restitution.5 The District Court’s judgment was affirmed by the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit on August 6, 1999.
On May 22, 2002, respondent issued a notice of deficiency
for petitioner’s 1990, 1991, 1992, and 1993 years. Petitioner
timely filed a petition with the Court.
OPINION
I. Expiration of the Period of Limitations
The first issue we must consider is whether the period of
limitations for each of petitioner’s 1990, 1991, 1992, and 1993
years expired before respondent issued the notice of deficiency
on May 22, 2002. Petitioner contends that the 3-year period in
section 6501(a) expired and respondent’s assessment is barred.
Respondent argues that the period of limitations in section
6501(a) does not apply pursuant to section 6501(c)(1) and (2)
because petitioner filed false or fraudulent returns with the
intent to evade tax for the years at issue. Accordingly, our
determination of whether the period of limitations remains open
depends on whether petitioner committed fraud in the filing of
his 1990, 1991, 1992, and 1993 returns.
5On Feb. 18, 1999, petitioner paid in full the $42,873.24
restitution ordered by the District Court. The parties
stipulated that the amount paid as restitution will be credited
to any deficiencies for the years 1990, 1991, 1992, and 1993
after they are redetermined by the Court or agreed upon by the
parties.
Page: Previous 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011