- 13 -
Mr. Hoyt that his partnership items would be treated as
nonpartnership items.
3. Respondent's Position
Respondent contends that Mr. Hoyt was TMP at all times when
he executed extensions of the periods of limitations for the Hoyt
partnerships. Respondent contends that section 301.6231(c)-5T,
Temporary Proced. & Admin. Regs., supra, is a valid regulation
and that, in accordance with the regulation, a taxpayer's
partnership items are not treated as nonpartnership items until
the Commissioner notifies the taxpayer that: (1) He is the
subject of a criminal tax investigation; and (2) his partnership
items will be treated as nonpartnership items. In addition,
respondent contends that the facts of Transpac Drilling Venture
1982-12 v. Commissioner, supra, are distinguishable from the
facts in this case and that the criminal tax investigation of Mr.
Hoyt did not create a conflict of interest affecting Mr. Hoyt's
duties as a fiduciary of the Hoyt partnerships.
4. Mr. Hoyt's Status as TMP for SGE 83-2's 1983 Taxable Year
As an initial matter, we must decide whether Mr. Hoyt was
validly designated TMP of SGE 83-2 for the 1983 taxable year.
Petitioners contend that Mr. Hoyt could not have served as SGE
83-2's TMP for 1983 because he was not a general partner of SGE
83-2 for that year and was not validly designated TMP on SGE 83-
2's 1983 partnership return.
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011