River City Ranches #1 Ltd., Jeffry Bergamyer, Tax Matters Partner - Page 5




                                        - 5 -                                         
                     Partnership           Year          Docket No.                   
                     RCR #2             1987             4876-94                      
                     RCR #3             1987             9550-94                      
                                        1989             13595-94                     
                     RCR #4             1984             14038-96                     
                     RCR #5             1987             9552-94                      
                                        1988, 1989       13597-94                     
                     RCR 85-2           1987             9554-94                      
                                        1988, 1989       13599-94                     
          In deciding this issue we must decide whether the consents to               
          extend the periods of limitations were invalid because Hoyt                 
          signed them while disabled by conflicts of interest known to                
          respondent.  Alternatively, if the consents were invalid, we must           
          decide whether the 6-year period of limitations on assessment               
          under section 6229(c)(1) applies because of fraud.5                         













               5In the second amendment to the answer, respondent raised              
          the application of the 6-year period of limitations on assessment           
          under sec. 6229(c)(1) as an alternative to the argument that the            
          consents were valid.  The issue was tried and briefed in River              
          City Ranches I.  In River City Ranches I, we held that                      
          petitioners did not prove that the consents were invalid and,               
          therefore, we did not decide whether the 6-year limitations                 
          period under sec. 6229(c)(1) applied.  The parties have briefed             
          the issue again on remand.                                                  





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  Next 

Last modified: November 10, 2007