Blog · 15 October 2026

Form 872 vs Form 872-T After Fine: Assessment Extensions, §6501(c)(4) Consents and What US CPA Firms Should Tell Clients

By Keshav Bansal, CA

Form 872-T does not terminate a fixed-date Form 872 consent to extend the assessment period. In Fine v. Commissioner, 167 T.C. No. 13 (filed September 30, 2026; Docket No. 24390-21; Judge Tamara W. Ashford), a reviewed Tax Court opinion appealable to the Eleventh Circuit, the court granted partial summary judgment for the Commissioner on timeliness after the taxpayers faxed Forms 872-T purporting to end their Forms 872. For US CPA firms, the holding turns on a form-choice that exam and Appeals teams make every week under IRC §6501(c)(4): fixed-date Form 872 versus open-ended Form 872-A.

What happened in Fine

Per KPMG TaxNewsFlash (October 1, 2026) and an Academy of Tax Law case summary of the opinion, petitioners Barry Holmes Fine and Monica Dias timely filed their 2015 return on October 16, 2016 and their 2016 return on October 15, 2017. Both years were examined. Counsel for the petitioners was James Vincent Bitonti; counsel for the Commissioner was Deborah Aloof.

The parties executed three Forms 872 (Consent to Extend the Time to Assess Tax):

• June 5, 2019 — 2015 assessment period extended to December 31, 2020 (IRS countersigned June 10, 2019).
• January 28, 2020 — 2016 assessment period extended to June 30, 2021 (IRS countersigned February 4, 2020).
• July 2, 2020 — 2015 assessment period further extended to December 31, 2021 (IRS countersigned July 6, 2020).

After a failed Appeals settlement, petitioners’ counsel faxed Forms 872-T on September 11, 2020 purporting to terminate the Forms 872 and requesting an expeditious notice of deficiency (NOD). Because Form 872-T has no box for terminating a Form 872, counsel checked the Form 872-A box and attached the executed Forms 872. The IRS mailed NODs dated April 15, 2021 determining deficiencies of $405,943 (2015) and $210,003 (2016), plus §6662(a) accuracy-related penalties of $81,189 (2015) and $42,001 (2016). Those NOD figures are what the IRS determined; the court ruled only on whether the notices were timely, not on the merits of the deficiencies or penalties.

Holding: Form 872-T does not end Form 872

Petitioners argued the NODs were untimely because they issued more than 90 days after the Forms 872-T. The Tax Court disagreed. It held that Form 872-T does not terminate a Form 872. A fixed-date Form 872 ends only by the passage of time, a new agreement, or issuance of an NOD within the agreed period. Form 872-A is the open-ended consent; it ends 90 days after a properly filed Form 872-T (or upon an NOD). Form 872-T itself offers no option to terminate a Form 872, and Form 872 does not mention Form 872-T.

The court relied on Coggin v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1993-209, and rejected a footnote in Kelley v. Commissioner, 45 F.3d 348 (9th Cir. 1995), as a non-binding factual recitation. Partial summary judgment went to the Commissioner on timeliness: the April 15, 2021 NODs fell inside the Form 872 periods (December 31, 2021 for 2015; June 30, 2021 for 2016).

Form 872, Form 872-A and Form 872-T under §6501(c)(4)

As general statute and practice rules (not holdings of Fine beyond the 872/872-T point), IRC §6501(c)(4) lets the IRS and the taxpayer agree in writing to extend the period for assessment. Two common consent forms matter:

• Form 872 — fixed expiration date. The assessment window ends on that date unless the parties sign a further extension or the IRS issues a timely NOD.
• Form 872-A — open-ended. Either party can terminate it with Form 872-T; the assessment period then generally closes 90 days after that termination (or sooner if an NOD issues).

A taxpayer who does not want another extension can refuse to sign and force the IRS to issue an NOD or lose the year when the current period expires. That leverage is real—but it is not the same as faxing a Form 872-T against a Form 872 that never invited one. Partnership Form 872-P requests raise a related strategy question in TEFRA/FPAA settings; our Toscano conservation easement FPAA guide covers declining an 872-P during exam.

What US CPA firms should tell clients

• Know which consent is on the file. Before advising a client to “pull” an extension, confirm whether the signed form is a Form 872 (fixed date) or Form 872-A (open-ended). Form 872-T works only for the latter.
• Calendar the Form 872 expiration, not a 90-day hope. In Fine, the 90-day clock petitioners claimed never started. Diary the agreed end date and any further 872 already signed.
• Treat refusal to extend as the pressure point. Under §6501(c)(4) practice, declining a further Form 872 can compel the IRS to issue an NOD or abandon the year—counsel should own that call.
• Separate timeliness from merits. Even when an NOD is timely, deficiency and penalty issues remain for trial or settlement. See our guides to the notice of deficiency and 90-day petition clock and the civil fraud penalty and statute of limitations after Mitchell.

A short firm checklist

1. On every open exam, pull the account transcript and copy every executed Form 872, 872-A, or 872-P; note IRS countersignature dates.
2. Label each consent “fixed-date” or “open-ended,” and enter the expiration date (or 872-T/90-day path) on the firm calendar.
3. If counsel proposes Form 872-T, verify the underlying consent is Form 872-A before anyone faxes it.
4. When the IRS asks for another Form 872, document the remaining days on the statute and the client’s decision to sign or refuse.
5. Once an NOD issues, switch immediately to the §6213(a) petition calendar; collection alternatives later are a separate track—see our IRS collection alternatives guide.

Where this fits for Tax Brew readers

Assessment-statute calendars, consent-form inventories and NOD petition clocks need careful prep while signing professionals and controversy counsel own the judgment calls. If your firm needs extra capacity on that preparation work, outsourced tax prep and bookkeeping support for US CPA firms can help. Email info@taxbrewglobal.com.

Sources: Fine v. Commissioner, 167 T.C. No. 13 (filed September 30, 2026; Docket No. 24390-21; Judge Tamara W. Ashford; reviewed opinion); KPMG TaxNewsFlash (October 1, 2026); Academy of Tax Law case summary; Coggin v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1993-209; Kelley v. Commissioner, 45 F.3d 348 (9th Cir. 1995); IRC §6501(c)(4). General information, not tax or legal advice. Sources as of 15 October 2026.