DocketNumber: Docket No. 42115
Citation Numbers: 25 B.T.A. 1091
Judges: Artjndell
Filed Date: 4/7/1932
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 10/17/2022
Petitioner’s position is that the last two waivers served only to extend the period for assessment of the 1917 tax, and not its collection. This view, however, we think is precluded by Stange
Nor are we impressed with petitioner’s argument that section 278(d) of the 1924 and 1926 Acts, in providing different'periods of limitation for assessment and collection, necessarily requires separate waivers for assessment and collection, and that Stange v. United States, supra, is not controlling. The intention of the parties was to extend the period for collection and we see nothing in section 278(d) to prevent giving effect to that understanding.
The waivers extended the time for collection to December 31, 1927. Within less than a year thereafter liability for taxes due from the taxpayer was asserted against the petitioner as transferee. The notice was timely. Louis Costanzo, 16 B. T. A. 1294; Newport Co., 24 B. T. A. 1246.
, For the years 1916 and 1917 decision will be entered for the respondent. For the years 1918 and 1919 decision will be entered for the petitioner.