169 Minn. 57, 210 N.W. 622, 49 A.L.R. 1260; Lamb v. Powder River Live Stock Co., 132 Fed. 434, 67 L.R.A. Lawrence v. Louisville, 96 Ky. 595, 29 S.W. 450, 27 L.R.A. 560, 49 Am. St. 309; Magma Copper Co. v. Arizona State Tax Comm., 191 P.2d 169; Merchants Natl. Bank v. Braithwaite (N.D.), 75 N.W. 244, 66 Am. St. 653; Saranac Land Tbr. Co. v. Comptroller, 177 U.S. 318, 44 L.Ed. 786, 20 S.Ct. 642; Saranac Land Tbr. Co. v. Roberts, 177 U.S. 318, 44 L.Ed. 786, 20 S.Ct. 642; Schutte v. Wisconsin Tax Comm., 292 N.W. 9; Soper v. Lawrence Bros. Co., 98 Maine 268, 56 A. 908, 99 Am. St. 397, 201 U.S. 359, 50 L.Ed. 788, 26 S.Ct. 473; United States v. Morena, 245 U.S. 392, 62 L.Ed. 359, 38 S.Ct. 151; 34 Am. Jur. pp. 53, 557; 25 Words and Phrases 303. III. The Legislature in establishing a limitation period on the appellee also provided the method of assessment, the period of time in which it could be determined and the provision under which a hearing is granted before an assessment can be made. Brown v. New York State Tax Comm., 99 N.Y.S. 3rd 73. IV. Correspondence or conferences by employees with taxpayer in connection with a proposed assessment is not sufficient to arrest the running of the period of limitation as the proposed assessment must be determined and reduced to an actual assessment as provided by the statute.