Silverman v. Commissioner

CourtCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit
DecidedJune 20, 1996
Docket95-2062
StatusPublished

This text of Silverman v. Commissioner (Silverman v. Commissioner) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the First Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Silverman v. Commissioner, (1st Cir. 1996).

Opinion

USCA1 Opinion



UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

____________________

No. 95-2062

DAVID R. SILVERMAN, ET AL.,

Petitioners, Appellants,

v.

COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE,

Respondent, Appellee.

____________________

ON APPEAL FROM DECISION OF THE

UNITED STATES TAX COURT

[Hon. Arnold Raum, U.S. Tax Court Judge] ____________________

____________________

Before

Cyr, Circuit Judge, _____________

Aldrich, Senior Circuit Judge, ____________________

and Gertner,* U.S. District Judge. ___________________

____________________

James P. Redding, with whom Gail E. Pergine and James P. Redding _________________ _______________ ________________
& Associates were on brief for petitioners, appellants. ____________
Kenneth W. Rosenberg, Attorney, Tax Division, Department of ______________________
Justice, with whom Loretta C. Argrett, Assistant Attorney General, and __________________
Gary R. Allen, Kenneth L. Greene, and Patricia M. Bowman, Attorneys, _____________ __________________ ___________________
Tax Division, Department of Justice, were on brief for respondent,
appellee.

____________________

June 20, 1996
____________________
____________________

*Of the District of Massachusetts, sitting by designation.

CYR, Circuit Judge. Petitioners David and Meredith CYR Circuit Judge _____________

Silverman appeal a United States Tax Court ruling rejecting their

claim that the statute of limitations barred further tax assess-

ments by the Internal Revenue Service ("IRS"). We affirm the tax

court decision.

I I

BACKGROUND BACKGROUND __________

The Silvermans jointly reported losses from a limited

partnership interest in a motion picture production company for

tax years 1975, 1976, and 1977. Petitioner David Silverman,

individually, reported another such loss on his 1980 tax return.

Later, the company and its investors were audited by IRS. Within

three years after filing their returns, see 26 U.S.C. 6501(a), ___

the Silvermans agreed to extend the limitation periods applicable

to these four reporting years, by executing IRS Form 872-A,

entitled Special Consent to Extend the Time to Assess Tax. See ___

id. 6501(c)(4) (authorizing extensions by agreement).1 ___

____________________

1In relevant part, the Form 872-A provided that the tax due
for the specified years

may be assessed on or before the 90th (nine-
tieth) day after: (a) the Internal Revenue ____________________
Service office considering the case receives _____________________________________________
Form 872-T, Notice of Termination of Special _____________________________________________
Consent to Extend the Time to Assess Tax, _____________________________________________
from the taxpayer(s); or (b) the Internal ______________________ __
Revenue Service mails Form 872-T to the tax-
payer(s); or (c) the Internal Revenue Service __
mails a notice of deficiency for such peri-
ods. . . .

(Emphasis added.)

2

Thereafter, the Silvermans and IRS signed a Form 906

"Closing Agreement," which bound them to the outcome in a so-

called "controlling case" before the tax court, relating to a

similar tax shelter. The Form 906 closing agreement authorized

IRS to assess a tax deficiency within one year after the decision

in the controlling case became final, notwithstanding the expira-

tion of any period of limitation prescribed by the Internal

Revenue Code. The closing agreement made no reference to the

Form 872-A extensions.

The tax court ruling in the controlling case became

final on July 18, 1991. Almost two years later, IRS received

from the Silvermans separate Forms 872-T, Notice of Termination

of Special Consent to Extend the Time to Assess Tax, relating to

all four tax years. Within ninety days from its receipt of these

Forms 872-T, IRS sent notices of income tax deficiencies for the

tax years in question, calculated in conformity with the final

outcome in the controlling case.

The Silvermans promptly initiated a tax court proceed-

ing, claiming that the Form 906 closing agreement effectively

terminated their earlier consent to extend indefinitely the

limitation periods as previously indicated in their Form 872-A

filings, with the result that IRS was required to make its

supplemental tax assessments within one year after the final

decision in the controlling case. IRS responded that the Form

906 closing agreement had no effect upon the earlier Form 872-A

extensions.

3

The tax court rejected the taxpayers' argument that

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Stange v. United States
282 U.S. 270 (Supreme Court, 1931)
Badaracco v. Commissioner
464 U.S. 386 (Supreme Court, 1984)
Douglas E. Wall v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue
875 F.2d 812 (Tenth Circuit, 1989)
DeSantis v. United States
783 F. Supp. 165 (S.D. New York, 1992)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Silverman v. Commissioner, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/silverman-v-commissioner-ca1-1996.