United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 01-1019

___________

Ross M. Muir, *

*

Petitioner, * Appeal from the United States

* Tax Court.

v. *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Commissioner of Internal Revenue, *

*

Respondent. *

___________

 Submitted: June 7, 2001

 Filed: June 15, 2001

___________

Before HANSEN, MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, and BYE, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

On his 1980 and 1981 federal tax returns, Ross M. Muir claimed losses arising

from an investment in a limited partnership. In 1984 and 1985 he executed Form 872-

A, consenting to an extension of the three-year statutory period in which the

Commissioner of Internal Revenue (“Commissioner”) could assess taxes against him

for the 1980 and 1981 tax years, respectively. See 26 U.S.C. §§ 6501(a) (time limit

for assessing tax); 6504(c)(4) (Commissioner and taxpayer may agree to extend normal

limitations period). Form 872-A provided that the extension agreement would be

terminated when either Muir or the Commissioner executed a notice of termination

(Form 872-T), or when the Commissioner mailed Muir a notice of deficiency. In 1988
1The Honorable Carolyn Miller Parr, United States Tax Court Judge.

-2-

the Commissioner issued Muir a notice of deficiency, disallowing the claimed

partnership losses. Muir then petitioned the tax court, challenging the assessment and

the rate of interest payable on the alleged underpayment of tax in 1980, and contending

that the notice of deficiency was time-barred. The tax court1 rejected his arguments

and he appeals. We affirm.

On appeal, Muir renews his argument that the statutory period for assessment

had expired. Having carefully reviewed the record and the parties’ briefs, see

Campbell v. Commissioner, 164 F.3d 1140, 1142 (8th Cir.) (standard of review), cert.

denied, 526 U.S. 1117 (1999), we agree with the tax court that the notice of deficiency

was not time-barred, because the Form 872-A extension was a valid agreement and the

statutory period of limitations did not expire by operation of law. See Stenclik v.

Commissioner, 907 F.2d 25, 27-29 (2d Cir.) (Form 872-A constitutes agreed-upon

extension as contemplated by § 6501(c)(4), and fact that extension granted by Form

872-A does not expire on date certain does not undermine its validity; Form 872-A is

hardly silent as to duration, which is expressly provided for and is as definite as

taxpayer needs it to be since he is empowered to commence termination period at any

time by filing Form 872-T), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 984 (1990).

We also reject Muir’s argument that the Commissioner unreasonably delayed

enforcement of the deficiency: Muir had the power to terminate the extension and

commence assessment at any time, to limit the accumulation of interest, and to settle

his case with the Commissioner while the matter was pending before the tax court. See

Stenclik, 907 F.2d at 28 (rejecting taxpayer’s claim that Commissioner unreasonably

and unjustifiably delayed issuing notice of deficiency, because Commissioner was

entitled to rely on explicit terms of Form 872-A agreement for termination and

assessment).
-3-

Accordingly, we affirm. 

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.