- 37 -
had constructed “in the hope that it would put off the day of
reckoning--perhaps forever, if his long run of luck held out.”
Id. at 1143.
We find that by February 1993, respondent knew or had reason
to know that Hoyt’s interest in extending the period within which
respondent could issue the FPAAs was in conflict with the
investor-partners’ interest in not delaying the issuance of the
FPAAs. Thus we conclude that the consents to extend the
limitations period signed in March 1993 are invalid.12 Hoyt
signed the consent to extend indefinitely the assessment period
for RCR #4’s 1984 tax year on August 1, 1987, before respondent
knew or had reason to know that Hoyt’s interest in extending the
limitations period conflicted with the partners’ interests. The
consent is valid, and respondent timely issued an FPAA to RCR #4
for its 1984 tax year on March 24, 1996.
B. The 6-Year Limitations Period Under Section
6229(c)(1) Applies to the Sheep Partnership
Returns for the Years at Issue
Notwithstanding our conclusion that the consents to
extensions of the limitations periods executed by Hoyt, the TMP,
12On Apr. 13, 2007, the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the
Eastern District of Louisiana held that the consents to extend
the limitations period signed with respect to Hoyt cattle
partnerships were invalid for similar reasons. In re Martinez,
Bankr. , 99 AFTR 2d 2007-2375 (Bankr. E.D. La. 2007).
Apparently, the Government did not raise the application of the
6-year limitations period under sec. 6229(c)1)(B), and the
Bankruptcy Court held that the FPAAs were untimely.
Page: Previous 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 Next
Last modified: November 10, 2007