Forster v. Commissioner
This text of 1985 T.C. Memo. 602 (Forster v. Commissioner) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering United States Tax Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION
SWIFT,
Following a brief hearing held on December 10, 1984, in Washington, D.C., this case was submitted fully stipulated pursuant to
FINDINGS OF FACT
Petitioners, Stanley and Dena Forster, are husband and wife and resided in Silver Spring, Maryland, at the time they filed their petition herein. Following the granting of an automatic extension, petitioners timely filed their 1975 Federal income tax return on May 24, 1976.
On their 1975 Federal income tax return, petitioners claimed a loss in the amount of $22,238 arising from a limited partnership interest. Upon audit, respondent disallowed this deduction. Petitioners executed a total of four forms to extend the time during which respondent could make an assessment with respect to their 1975 Federal income tax liability. A Form 872, "Consent Fixing Period of Limitation Upon Assessment of Tax," was executed by petitioners on February 28, 1979, extending the time for assessment to April 15, 1980. A second Form 872, "Consent to Extend the Time of Assess Tax," was executed by petitioners on April 8, 1980, extending the time for assessment to April 15, 1981. A third Form 872, "Consent to Extend the Time to Assess Tax," was executed by petitioners on March 11, 1981, extending the time for*38 assessment to April 15, 1982. Finally, a Form 872A, "Special Consent to Extend the Time to Assess Tax," was executed by petitioners on November 30, 1981, extending the time for assessment until 90 days after the Internal Revenue Service either mailed to or received from the taxpayers a Form 872 or 90 days following the issuance of a statutory notice of deficiency, whichever event occurred first.
On or about May 22, 1983, petitioners signed and mailed to respondent a Form 906, "Closing Agreement on Final Determination Covering Specific Matters," (hereinafter referred to as the "Closing Agreement"). The agreement reflected therein pertained to the deductions petitioners had claimed on their 1975 Federal income tax return with respect to the limited partnership interest. The agreement was negotiated with and orally agreed to by respondent's Washington, D.C., Office of Appeals and by petitioners' counsel. The Closing Agreement never actually was executed by the Internal Revenue Service, and it was not contained within respondent's administrative file pertaining to petitioners' 1975 Federal income tax liability. Petitioners did not enclose with the Closing Agreement any payment with*39 respect to their Federal income tax liability for 1975, nor have they made any subsequent payments with regard thereto.
Petitioners also executed a second closing agreement (also Form 906) on or about May 31, 1983, which pertained to deductions that petitioners had taken on their 1976 Federal income tax return with regard to another limited partnership interest. Although a Copy of the second closing agreement is contained in respondent's administrative file with regard to petitioners, that agreement also was not executed by respondent's representatives.
OPINION
Petitioners contend that they are not liable for interest under section 6601(a) 1 accruing subsequent to May 22, 1983, on the agreed deficiency for 1975 of $7,337.40. May 22, 1983, is the date on which petitioners mailed the Closing Agreement to the Internal Revenue Service. Their argument is based on respondent's failure to execute the Closing Agreement and on the exception provided in section 6601(c) to the imposition of interest under section 6601(a).
Respondent contends that*40 this Court does not have jurisdiction with respect to interest under section 6601(a) and, in the alternative, that petitioners are liable for the interest in dispute because under that section interest accrues until the date of payment and no payment with respect to the agreed deficiency has been made. For the reasons explained below, we agree with respondent that we do not have jurisdiction over the interest in question herein.
This Court is a court of limited jurisdiction.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
1985 T.C. Memo. 602, 51 T.C.M. 81, 1985 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 35, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/forster-v-commissioner-tax-1985.