Once again, memory drifts me back to the Hill Far Above and a former millennium, more particularly bounded and described in my blogpost “The Battle of the Forms,” 11/16/17. Now, however, there’s a clear winner, as Form 872-M o’ercrows Form 8981, bringing DIBC Buffalo Hills Ranch, LLC, LC Fulenwider, Inc., Partnership Representative, Docket No. 13369-25, filed 9/18/26, squarely within Tax Court jurisdiction.

The Buffalo hillbillies claim 3SOL, but the designated hitter of their PRep, duly designated in Form 8979, Partnership Representative Revocation, Designation, and Resignation, duly signed two (count ’em, two) successive Forms 872-M, Consent to Extend the Time to Make Partnership Adjustment, during which second extension IRS dropped their NOPPA and FPA.

Judge Christian N. (“Speedy”) Weiler takes up the story.

“Petitioner did not request any changes or modifications in response to the. NOPPA; however, …petitioner electronically submitted Form 8981, Waiver of the Period under IRC Section 6231(b)(2)(A) and Expiration of the Period for Modification Submissions Under IRC Section 6225(c)(7). A representative of IRS, however, never countersigned Form 8981 nor sent an executed copy of the Form 8981 back to petitioner.” Order, at p. 3. (Footnote omitted, but it says IRS sent the FPA after the 270 day cutoff.)

So battle is joined. “Petitioner contends that since it submitted Form 8981 … under section 6235(a)(2), the IRS was required to issue the FPA within 270 days from the date of submission of Form 8981…. Respondent contends that since the partnership never submitted a request for modification or changes, section 6235(a)(2) has no application; moreover, even if there was a valid Form 8981 executed by the parties, the parties had previously agreed to extend the limitations period under Form 872–M.” Order, at p. 5.

For those who remember my blogpost “A New Day – Extended,” 9/9/26, the outcome is no surprise.

“In any event, ‘any agreed-upon extension under section 6235(b) would necessarily extend the limitations period for making adjustments, and any extension must be taken into consideration in determining the latest of the periods found in paragraphs (1), (2), and (3).’ Katanga Properties, LLC, 167 T.C. slip op. at 7–8. In this case the parties agreed to extend the limitations period under section 6235(a)(1) on two separate occasions: the first Form 872–M extended the adjustment limitations period until December 31, 2024, and the second Form 872–M further extended the adjustment limitations period until December 31, 2025. Both periods were extended prior to the expiration of such period.” Order, at p. 6. (Footnote omitted, but it says Extension One was timely.)

The Buffalo hillbillies’ trusty attorney cannot be faulted for not foreseeing Katanga at the hearing of the summary J motion back in June. He gets a Taishoff “Good Try, third class.”