Barry and Sherry Blondheim - Page 13

                                       - 13 -                                         
          application of the guidelines, which we decline to second-guess.            
          See Speltz v. Commissioner, 124 T.C. 165 (2005), affd. 454 F.3d             
          782 (8th Cir. 2006); Clayton v. Commissioner, supra; Barnes v.              
          Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2006-150.                                          
               Petitioners make seven arguments in advocating a contrary              
          result.  First, petitioners argue that the Court lacks                      
          jurisdiction to review the rejection of their offer-in-                     
          compromise.  Petitioners allege that Hoyt had a conflict of                 
          interest that prevented him from extending the periods of                   
          limitation for the partnerships in which petitioners were                   
          partners.  Petitioners conclude that any consents signed by Hoyt            
          to extend the periods of limitation were invalid, which in turn             
          means that the Court lacks jurisdiction because the applicable              
          periods of limitation have otherwise expired.                               
               Petitioners’ challenge to this Court’s jurisdiction is                 
          groundless, frivolous, and unavailing.  It is well settled that             
          the expiration of the period of limitation is an affirmative                
          defense and not a factor of this Court’s jurisdiction.  See Day             
          v. McDonough, 547 U.S.    , 126 S. Ct. 1675, 1681 (2006) (“A                
          statute of limitations defense * * * is not ‘jurisdictional’”);             
          Kontrick v. Ryan, 540 U.S. 443, 458 (2004) (“Time bars * * *                
          generally must be raised in an answer or responsive pleading.”);            
          see also Davenport Recycling Associates v. Commissioner, 220 F.3d           
          1255, 1259 (11th Cir. 2000), affg. T.C. Memo. 1998-347; Chimblo             






Page:  Previous  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011