                      T.C. Memo. 1999-222



                     UNITED STATES TAX COURT


                RICHARD M. KRISKE, Petitioner v.
          COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent


     Docket No. 15368-98.            Filed July 6, 1999.


     Richard M. Kriske, pro se.

     Blaine C. Holiday, for respondent.


                       MEMORANDUM OPINION


     POWELL, Special Trial Judge:   This case was assigned

pursuant to the provisions of section 7443A(b)(3) and Rules 180,

181, and 182.1

     Respondent determined a deficiency in petitioner's 1994

Federal income tax in the amount of $2,602.    The issue is whether


     1
         Section references are to the Internal Revenue Code in
effect during the year at issue, and Rule references are to the
Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure.
                                - 2 -


the period of limitations expired before the issuance of the

notice of deficiency.    Petitioner resided in Minneapolis,

Minnesota, at the time he filed his petition.

     The facts may be summarized as follows.      Petitioner timely

filed his Federal income tax return for 1994.      On that return

petitioner claimed deductions for various expenses.      Respondent

commenced an examination of petitioner's 1994 return.      Petitioner

was unable to locate records substantiating deductions that he

had claimed on his return.    The period of limitations for making

an assessment would have expired on April 15, 1998.      Petitioner

executed a Form 872, Consent To Extend the Time To Assess Tax, on

February 27, 1998, and respondent executed the form on March 9,

1998.   The consent provided that the amount of any Federal income

tax due on the 1994 return could be assessed at any time on or

before April 30, 1999.    On June 17, 1998, respondent issued a

notice of deficiency to petitioner.      Petitioner does not dispute

the substantive tax adjustments contained in the notice of

deficiency; rather, he contends that the notice of deficiency was

untimely.

     Section 6501(a) provides, with exceptions not relevant here,

that "the amount of any tax * * * shall be assessed within 3

years after the return was filed".      That period of limitations is

suspended if a notice of deficiency is sent to the taxpayer and a

petition is filed with this Court.      See sec. 6503(a)(1).   Section
                                - 3 -


6501(c)(4) provides that before the expiration of the period of

limitations in section 6501(a), the parties may consent "in

writing to * * * [the] assessment after such time, [and] the tax

may be assessed at any time prior to the expiration of the period

agreed upon."

     Petitioner acknowledges that he executed the consent to

extend the period of limitations.   He maintains, however, that

the consent he executed is invalid because it is an "adhesion

contract".   According to petitioner an adhesion contract "is not

binding where there is in fact some obvious differences in power,

and of course, differences in knowledge".   He maintains that

respondent was the "stronger party [and] gave me no choice."

This is whimsical nonsense.

     While a consent to extend the period of limitations is not a

contract, contract principles are relevant because a written

agreement is necessary.   See Piarulle v. Commissioner, 80 T.C.

1035, 1042 (1983).   It may be that if petitioner had not executed

the consent, respondent would have issued the notice of

deficiency at an earlier date, but petitioner was under no duress

to execute the consent.   See Ballard v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo.

1987-471.    Petitioner could have refused, respondent would have

issued a notice of deficiency, and petitioner presumably would

have been before this Court.   Rather, he and respondent agreed to

extend the period of limitations so that petitioner could obtain
                               - 4 -


records and the parties could settle the dispute.     The dispute,

however, was not settled.   Nonetheless, the consent was valid,

and the notice of deficiency was timely.



                                       Decision will be entered

                               for respondent.
