Kriske v. Commissioner , 78 T.C.M. 39 ( 1999 )

RICHARD M. KRISKE, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent

Kriske v. Commissioner

No. 15368-98

United States Tax Court

T.C. Memo 1999-222; 1999 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 259; 78 T.C.M. (CCH) 39; T.C.M. (RIA) 99222;

July 6, 1999, Filed

---

Decision will be entered for respondent.

Richard M. Kriske, pro se.

Blaine C. Holiday, for respondent.

Powell, Carleton D.

---

POWELL

MEMORANDUM OPINION

POWELL, SPECIAL TRIAL JUDGE: This case was assigned pursuant to the provisions of section 7443A(b)(3) and Rules 180, 181, and 182. ^{*261 executed the form on March 9, 1998. The consent provided that the amount of any Federal income tax due on the 1994 return could be assessed at any time on or before April 30, 1999. On June 17, 1998, respondent issued a notice of deficiency to petitioner. Petitioner does not dispute the substantive tax adjustments contained in the notice of deficiency; rather, he contends that the notice of deficiency was untimely.}

Section 6501(a) provides, with exceptions not relevant here, that "the amount of any tax * * * shall be assessed within 3 years after the return was filed". That period of limitations is suspended if a notice of deficiency is sent to the taxpayer and a petition is filed with this Court. See sec. 6503(a)(1). Section 6501(c)(4) provides that before the expiration of the period of limitations in section 6501(a), the parties may consent "in writing to * * * [the] assessment after such time, [and] the tax may be assessed at any time prior to the expiration of the period agreed upon."

Petitioner acknowledges that he executed the consent to extend the period of limitations. He maintains, however, that the consent he executed is invalid because it is an "adhesion contract". According to petitioner an adhesion contract "is not binding where there is in fact some obvious differences in power, and of course, differences in knowledge". He maintains that respondent was the "stronger party [and] gave me no choice." This is whimsical nonsense.

While a consent to extend the period of limitations is not a contract, contract principles are relevant because a written agreement is necessary. See Piarulle v. Commissioner, 80 T.C. 1035">80 T.C. 1035, 1042 (1983). It may be that if petitioner had not executed the consent, respondent would have issued the notice of deficiency at an earlier date, but petitioner was under no duress to execute the consent. See Ballard v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo 1987-471">T.C. Memo 1987-471. Petitioner could have refused, respondent would have issued a notice of deficiency, and petitioner presumably would have been before this Court. Rather, he and respondent agreed to extend the period of limitations so that petitioner could obtain records and the parties could settle the dispute. The dispute, however, was not settled. Nonetheless, the consent was valid, and the notice of deficiency was timely.

Decision will be entered for respondent.

---

Footnotes

• 1. Section references are to the Internal Revenue Code in effect during the year at issue, and Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure.↩