Ezel / IRS Rulings / 201652023
Chief Counsel Advice 201652023 Released December 23, 2016 Advice

Limitations extension applies only to husband who signed it

Apply this to your situation

This page covers one taxpayer's ruling from 2016, which can't be cited as precedent. Ezel answers your situation under the current Code and IRS guidance, with citations.

Currency note: this determination was released in 2016
Statutory amendments, regulation changes, court decisions, or later IRS guidance may have changed the analysis since then. Treat this page as historical context, not current tax advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule, threshold, or position mentioned here.
Not precedent. Under 26 U.S.C. § 6110(k)(3), this written determination may not be used or cited as precedent. It resolved one taxpayer's situation on its specific facts, and identifying details were redacted by the IRS before release. The official IRS release (linked on this page as a PDF) is the authoritative source.
About this page: The plain-English summary and ruling snapshot below were written by Ezel based on the official IRS release. The full text is the IRS's own document.
View official IRS release (PDF)

Plain-English summary

Chief Counsel advised that a case should not be conceded merely because Form 872-H was used instead of Form 872. Only the husband extended the assessment period. The extension therefore was valid against him but not against his wife.

Ruling snapshot

  • Question: What is the effect of using Form 872-H when only one spouse extended the assessment period?
  • Outcome: advice given
  • Key authorities: IRC § 6501(c)(4)

Full text (IRS public release)

ID: CCA_2016112320133947
UILC: 6501.08-00

Number: 201652023
Release Date: 12/23/2016
From:
Sent: Wednesday, November 23, 2016 8:13:39 PM
To:
Cc:
Bcc:
Subject: 6501(c)(4) Question

Laura,

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------we recommend that a
case not be conceded simply because a Form 872-H was used instead of a Form

  1. As only taxpayer husband extended the statute, but not the wife, the extension is
    only valid against the husband. --------------------------------------------------------------------------

Please feel free to contact me at ----------------------.

Yours,

Elie

Get today's answer for your situation

You just read what the IRS ruled for one taxpayer in 2016, and it can't be cited as precedent. Ezel checks the current Internal Revenue Code and IRS guidance and answers your specific situation, with citations.

Opens in Ezel Pro. Every answer cites the authority it relies on.