Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-14-60910/USCOURTS-ca5-14-60910-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Charles T. Bruce
Appellant
Mary A. Bruce
Appellant
Commissioner of Internal Revenue
Appellee

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-60910

Summary Calendar

CHARLES T. BRUCE; MARY A. BRUCE,

Petitioners-Appellants

v.

COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE,

Respondent-Appellee

Appeal from the United States Tax Court

Internal Revenue Service

No. 29005-10

Before REAVLEY, DENNIS, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The only argument made by the Petitioners—that the limitations bar 

applies because the deficiency notice was issued more than three years after 

the tax return—is meritless. As the Tax Court reasoned, Tax Court Rule 39 

expressly requires that a taxpayer specifically allege in their pleading that the 

period of limitations has run. The Petitioners acknowledge that they did not 

raise this affirmative defense in their petition. Accordingly, the Tax Court 

 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not 

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

June 25, 2015

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 14-60910 Document: 00513093491 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/25/2015
No. 14-60910

2

concluded that the taxpayers waived any dispute as to the applicability of the 

three-year limitations period by not timely raising the issue. Accord

Markwardt v. Comm’r of Internal Revenue, 64 T.C. 989, 997 (1975). 

The Tax Court noted that it has the discretion to consider an issue that 

was not timely raised, but that it generally does not do so where the party 

raises the issue for the first time on brief and the court’s consideration of the 

issue would unfairly prejudice the opposing party. The Tax Court further 

found that to exercise its discretion and consider the statute of limitations 

issue in this case would unfairly prejudice the Commissioner because the 

Commissioner had entered into a stipulation with the Petitioners based upon 

the valid assumption that the statute of limitations was not at issue because it 

had not been pleaded. We agree with the reasoning and conclusions of the Tax 

Court. 

Accordingly, the judgment of the Tax Court is AFFIRMED.

Case: 14-60910 Document: 00513093491 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/25/2015