Opinion
10128-23
12-11-2024
ADRIENNE MENNEMEYER, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
ORDER
Courtney D. Jones Judge
The trial in this case took place during the Court's St. Louis, Missouri, trial session. At trial, the Court reserved ruling on 11 proposed exhibits offered by respondent, the Commissioner of Internal Revenue, and petitioner, Adrienne Mennemeyer: Exhibits 1003-R, 1010-R, 1012-R, 1013-R, 1014-R, 1017-P, 1019-P, 1036-P, 1037-P, 1038-P, and 1042-P. The parties have now had an opportunity to brief their positions regarding these proposed exhibits.
On brief, respondent has withdrawn Exhibits 1012-R and 1014-R. In addition, respondent no longer objects to admission of Exhibits 1036-P and 1042-P. Accordingly, Exhibits 1012-R and 1014-R will be withdrawn. Exhibits 1036-P and 1042-P will be admitted. Next, we turn to the remaining disputed exhibits.
Exhibits 1019-P and 1042-P are identical. We address that issue below.
I. Exhibit 1003-R
Exhibit 1003-R is Form 872, Consent to Extend the Time to Assess Tax, extending the limitation period for assessing Ms. Mennemeyer's taxes for 2018 until October 15, 2023. The Form 872 includes a handwritten signature by Ms. Mennemeyer and her former representative, dated April 4, 2022, as well as a digital signature by Amy M. Beimfohr, dated April 5, 2022. Ms. Beimfohr's name appears on the Form 872 above a line that says "IRS Official's Signature", and her name appears with a title indicating that she is a Supervisory Internal Revenue Agent at the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). In addition, Form 872 includes an image of Ms. Beimfohr's handwritten signature, along with the statement "Digitally signed by Amy M. Beimfohr" above "Date: 2022.04.05 07:33:58-05'00'" indicating the date and time the digital signature was applied.
Although Ms. Mennemeyer admits that she signed Form 872, she argues that Exhibit 1003-R should not be admitted because the IRS has failed to prove who signed Form 872 and when. She also posits several other meritless arguments in an effort to avoid admission of Exhibit 1003-R, which she and a representative signed. See AmeriSouth XXXII, Ltd. v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2012-67, 2012 WL 795528, at *1 (observing that the taxpayer "throws in everything but the kitchen sink to support its argument," including literal kitchen sinks).
The Commissioner must generally assess income tax within three years of the filing date of the return for that year. See § 6501(a). But the Commissioner and a taxpayer can agree to extend the statute of limitations by executing a written agreement signed by both parties before the expiration of the statutory period. Sec. 6501(c)(4). If a petitioner makes a prima facia showing that the statute of limitations bars an assessment, the Commissioner must show that the parties executed a written consent, valid on its face, extending the period of limitation for assessment, and that the notice of deficiency was mailed prior to the expiration of the extended period. Adler v. Commissioner, 85 T.C. 535, 540-541 (1985). "A consent is valid on its face if it identifies the taxpayers, bears their signatures, identifies the year, and is dated prior to the expiration of the existing limitations period." Kim v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1996-142, 1996 WL 121242, at *2.
Unless otherwise indicated, statutory references are to the Internal Revenue Code, Title 26 U.S.C. (Code), in effect at all relevant times.
The Commissioner has established each of these elements. The parties agreed to extend the period for assessment through October 15, 2023. This extension was in effect on March 15, 2023, when the Commissioner issued a Notice of Deficiency for the 2018 taxable year. Further, the Form 872 is valid on its face and signed by both parties. Id.; Harber v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1992-707, 1992 WL 367758, at *3 (noting that the burden of proof in establishing that the period of limitation has expired rests with the taxpayer; Ribb v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1988-379, 1988 WL 83925, at *3 ("[W]hen a consent appears regular on its face and in accordance with the law, we generally presume that the party who signed it on behalf of respondent acted within the scope of his authority."); Three G Trading Corp. v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1988-131, 1988 WL 24946 (noting that "an agreement extending the statute of limitations need not be executed perfectly").
Once the IRS introduces a timely consent that is valid on its face, and the taxpayer asserts that such consent was ineffective, then the taxpayer is required to prove the invalidity of the consent. Amesbury Apartments, Ltd. v. Commissioner, 95 T.C. 227, 240-41 (1990). For the reasons set forth in respondent's briefing, Ms. Mennemeyer has failed to do so here. Accordingly, the Court will overrule Ms. Mennemeyer's objections and will receive Exhibit 1003-R into evidence.
II. Exhibit 1010-R
Exhibit 1010-R is a Joint Stipulation of Dismissal related to Ms. Mennemeyer's arbitration dispute and associated litigation. Ms. Mennemeyer's only objection to admission is that it is not relevant. It is well established that the relevance bar is low. Sage v. Commissioner, 154 T.C. 270, 279 (2020); see also Fed. R. Evid. 401. As noted by respondent, Exhibit 1010-R relates to a settlement agreement between PNC and Ms. Mennemeyer, which is directly relevant to a key issue in this case regarding unreported income. Accordingly, the Court will overrule Ms. Mennemeyer's objections and will receive Exhibit 1010-R into evidence.
III. Exhibit 1013-R
Exhibit 1013-R is an IRS Service MeF Return Request and Display, showing the date, time, IP address, and other information regarding petitioner's electronically filed return for taxable year 2018, including that the IRS received the return electronically on October 15, 2019. Ms. Mennemeyer objects that "[t]here is no evidence that explains what this document states." Ms. Mennemeyer's summary objection is not supported by legal authority or citation. Regardless, given that Ms. Mennemeyer challenges assessment in this case based, in part, on the statute of limitations, we disagree with her generalized objection to this exhibit. See Fed. R. Evid. 401. Accordingly, the Court will overrule Ms. Mennemeyer's objection and will receive Exhibit 1013-R into evidence.
IV. Exhibits 1017-P and 1037-P
Exhibit 1017-P contains certain medical records related to Ms. Mennemeyer, and Exhibit 1037-P contains photographs of Ms. Mennemeyer's purported injuries. Respondent's primary objections appear to be that the documents are not relevant, are incomplete, and they lack foundation. In reality, respondent's arguments go to the weight we give these proposed exhibits, not a bar to admissibility. Accordingly, we will overrule respondent's objections and will receive Exhibits 1017-P and 1037-P into evidence.
V. Exhibit 1019-P
Exhibit 1019-P is a Consignment Agreement, which will be admitted as Exhibit 1042-P. Respondent objects that the exhibit is duplicative, and we agree. See Fed. R. Evid. 403 (permitting exclusion of relevant evidence if it is needlessly cumulative). Accordingly, the Court will sustain respondent's objection to Exhibit 1019-P.
VI. Exhibit 1038-P
Exhibit 1038-P is Form 4868, Application for Automatic Extension of Time to File U.S. Income Tax Return, purportedly sent by Ms. Mennemeyer's accounting firm to extend the 2018 income tax return filing deadline. Respondent argues that the document should be excluded for lack of foundation, hearsay, and because it was submitted late and therefore lacks credibility. The Court is unclear how late submission of an exhibit-without more-impugns a party's credibility, and respondent has not offered any caselaw in support of his position. Moreover, the Court has already rejected respondent's complaints regarding timeliness in this case. Mr. John Burns, a trial witness, laid the appropriate foundation for admission of Exhibit 1038-P, and, in any event, respondent has not fully developed this argument. Finally, respondent has not explained his position regarding purported hearsay in the document. Rather, it appears that respondent's objections relate to the weight we should afford Exhibit 1038-P rather than admissibility of the document. Accordingly, we will overrule respondent's objections and will receive Exhibit 1038-P into evidence.
In light of the foregoing, the Court will reopen the record solely to receive evidence as set forth herein.
Upon due consideration, it is hereby
ORDERED that the record is reopened. It is further
ORDERED that Exhibits 1012-R and 1014-R are withdrawn. It is further
ORDERED that Exhibits 1003-R, 1010-R, 1013-R, 1017-P, 1036-P, 1037-P, 1038-P, and 1042-P are admitted into evidence. It is further
ORDERED that the Court sustains respondent's objections to Exhibit 1019-P. It is further
ORDERED that the record is closed.