Allen v. Comm'r
United States Tax Court
P's returns for the years at issue were false and fraudulent due to the fraudulent intent of the return preparer. P himself did not have fraudulent intent and did not file the returns with the intent to evade taxes. R issued P a deficiency notice after the regular 3-year limitations period for assessing P's liabilities had expired.
Read the full summary
P's returns for the years at issue were false and fraudulent due to the fraudulent intent of the return preparer. P himself did not have fraudulent intent and did not file the returns with the intent to evade taxes. R issued P a deficiency notice after the regular 3-year limitations period for assessing P's liabilities had expired. Held: The limitations period is indefinitely extended under sec. 6501(c)(1), I.R.C., if a return is fraudulent, regardless of whether the fraud was committed by the taxpayer or the taxpayer's preparer.
1Opinion of the Court
VINCENT ALLEN, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
Allen v. Comm'r
No. 11016-05
United States Tax Court
128 T.C. 37; 2007 U.S. Tax Ct. LEXIS 7; 128 T.C. No. 4;
March 5, 2007
P's returns for the years at issue were false and fraudulent due to the fraudulent intent of the return preparer. P himself did
not have fraudulent intent and did not file the returns with the
intent to evade taxes. R issued P a deficiency notice after
the regular 3-year limitations period for assessing P's
liabilities had expired.
Held: The limitations period is indefinitely extended
under sec. 6501(c)(1),…
2Cases cited15 opinions
- Badaracco v. CommissionerSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
- American Properties, Inc. v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1957
- Rhone-Poulenc Surfactants & Specialties, L.P. v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 2000
- Joseph P. Lucia v. United States of AmericaCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1973
- Tinkoff v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1936
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.