Terry K. Shockley v. Commissioner of IRS, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 14200

SCC was a closely held corporation acquired May 31, 2001; Shockley family were SCC shareholders/officers.
IRS issued two notices of deficiency for SCC’s 2001 tax year (Feb 18, 2005) to SCC at different addresses (D.C. and Madison).
2005 petition filed in Tax Court challenged Madison notice, claiming invalidity and seeking redetermination of SCC’s deficiency; petition framed as by the Shockleys.”
Tax Court dismissed the 2005 petition for lack of jurisdiction due to lack of capacity to act for SCC.
IRS assessed SCC’s corporate tax deficiency and penalties on Sept 6, 2007; transferee-liability notices issued Aug 31, 2008 to Shockleys and Shockley Holdings.
Shockleys later filed petitions for redetermination of their transferee liabilities; IRS argued the 2005 petition tolled under § 6503(a)(1).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the 2005 Tax Court petition tolled the statute of limitations under § 6503(a)(1).	Shockleys contend petition not a proceeding in respect of SCC’s deficiency due to invalid Madison notice.	IRS argues the petition was a proceeding in respect of SCC’s deficiency and suspended the period.	Yes; the petition was in respect of SCC’s deficiency and tolling attached.

Helvering v. American Equitable Assur. Co., 68 F.2d 46 (2d Cir. 1933) (tolling allowed despite jurisdictional defects when proceeding placed on docket)
Martin v. Commissioner, 436 F.3d 1216 (10th Cir. 2006) (filing by non-authorized filer can still toll if proceeding in respect of deficiency)
Badaracco v. Comm'r, 464 U.S. 386 (1984) (strict construction in government’s favor for limitations)
Coggin Automotive Corp. v. Comm'r, 292 F.3d 1326 (11th Cir. 2002) (statutory interpretation framework for limitations)
Tello v. Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc., 410 F.3d 1275 (11th Cir. 2005) (plain-language approach to statutory provisions)