CCA 200851068: A one-line pointer to a case on reforming a consent that names the wrong signer

Plain-English summary

The shortest kind of release in this batch: a colleague remembers the case, sends the citation, and adds one line of judgment.

The message is written so that the subject line is the first half of the sentence. The subject gives a case name and a Tax Court citation, and the body opens "Is the case I was thinking of." Read together they say only that the writer has located the authority they had in mind. Then comes the substance, in a single clause: the writer thinks there would be a good case for reformation if the error in identifying the person signing were to become an issue.

The context has to be read off the classification rather than the text. The release is filed under the limitations period on assessment, which in practice means a consent extending that period, the agreement on Form 872 by which a taxpayer and the Service agree that the deadline for assessing tax will run longer than it otherwise would. Such a consent has to be signed by someone with authority to bind the taxpayer, and disputes arise when the signature block names the wrong person, or names them in the wrong capacity. If the consent is bad, the extension fails and the assessment period may already have closed, which is why a naming error on the form is worth an email.

Reformation is the remedy the writer points to. It is the equitable correction of a written instrument that does not reflect what the parties actually agreed, and applying it here would mean treating the consent as though it named the signer correctly, rather than treating it as void. The writer's view is that such an argument would be a good one, but the release gives no reasoning for it and does not describe the error, the parties, or the tax years.

Two limits on using this document. The advice is conditional on the point becoming an issue at all, so it is contingency planning rather than a conclusion. And the citation is not verified here: the citation-checking tool was unavailable in this session, so the case name and reference are reproduced exactly as the release gives them, without a year, and a reader should check them independently before relying on the analogy.

This is a clean digital release rather than a scan, so no OCR correction was needed. Kept as released: "a good case for reformation is the error in identifying the person signing were to become an issue," where "is" appears where "if" is meant; the sentence beginning in the subject line and continuing into the body; and the abbreviated "v. CIR".

Ruling snapshot

• Question: What authority addresses a consent extending the assessment period on which the signer is misidentified?
• Outcome: Advice given, in one line. The writer identifies Woods v. CIR, 92 T.C. 776 as the case they had in mind, and thinks there would be a good case for reformation if the error in identifying the person signing were to become an issue. No reasoning is given.
• Key authorities: IRC section 6501; Woods v. CIR, 92 T.C. 776, cited without a year and not independently verified here.

Full text (IRS public release)

ID: CCA_2008092415594864 Number: 200851068
Office: ------------- Release Date: 12/19/2008

UILC: 6501.00-00

From: ------------------
Sent: Wednesday, September 24, 2008 3:59:51 PM
To: ----------------------
Cc:
Subject: Woods v. CIR, 92 T.C. 776

Is the case I was thinking of. I think you would have a good case for reformation is the error in identifying
the person signing were to become an issue.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------