-17-
mailing of the FPAAs after the running of those periods. See
Madison Recycling Associates v. Commissioner, supra at 286;
Amesbury Apartments, Ltd. v. Commissioner, supra at 240-241. If
petitioner makes such a showing, the burden of production shifts
to respondent to show that the bar of the periods of limitation
does not apply. See Madison Recycling Associates v.
Commissioner, supra at 286; Transpac Drilling Venture 1982-12 v.
Commissioner, supra at 224 n.5; Amesbury Apartments, Ltd. v.
Commissioner, supra at 241. If respondent makes such a showing,
the burden of production shifts back to petitioner to establish
that the claimed exception to the expiration of the limitation
periods is ineffective or otherwise inapplicable. See Madison
Recycling Associates v. Commissioner, supra at 286; Amesbury
Apartments, Ltd. v. Commissioner, supra at 241. While the burden
of production may shift in this manner, the burden of persuasion
never shifts from petitioner but remains with petitioner. See
Madison Recycling Associates v. Commissioner, supra at 286;
Amesbury Apartments, Ltd. v. Commissioner, supra at 241.
Petitioner has pleaded a claim to the affirmative defense
that the periods of limitation have expired as to the subject
years, and petitioner has met the initial burden of production as
to that claim. As to the latter, the record establishes the
dates on which the subject returns were filed and that the FPAAs
were issued to Leatherstocking more than 3 years after the
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011