Ezel / IRS Rulings / 201652023

Limitations extension applies only to husband who signed it

Number
201652023
Outcome
Advice
Document type
Chief Counsel Advice
IRS subject
Waiver of Limitation (Waived v. Not Waived)
Topics
Procedure, penalties, and administration
Code sections
§ 6501
Ruling dated
November 23, 2016
Publicly released
December 23, 2016
Source
View Official PDF

Apply this to your situation

This page covers legal advice the IRS Office of Chief Counsel wrote for IRS staff, issued in 2016, which can't be cited as precedent. Ask about your situation and see what the current Code and IRS guidance say, 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 is advice from the IRS Office of Chief Counsel to IRS personnel on the facts they presented, 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

What does the Code say today, for your facts?

This advice was written for IRS staff and cannot be cited. Ezel checks the current Internal Revenue Code and IRS guidance against your situation, with citations.

Opens in Ezel Pro.

  • Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
  • Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
  • Chat, drafting and research in one workspace