- 15 -
OPINION
We Lack Jurisdiction To Consider Petitioners’ Argument That Mr.
Blonien Was Not a Partner
Petitioners argue that Mr. Blonien never became a partner in
Finley Kumble. They therefore contend that the period of
limitations under section 6229 for respondent to assess a
deficiency relating to partnership items does not apply to them.
Petitioners further contend that the period of limitations for
assessing a deficiency relating to nonpartnership items (section
6501) has expired.
Respondent argues that we lack jurisdiction in this
proceeding to consider petitioners’ argument that Mr. Blonien was
not a partner in Finley Kumble. We agree with respondent.
“When a jurisdictional issue is raised, as well as a statute
of limitations issue, we must first decide whether we have
jurisdiction in the case before considering the statute of
limitations defense.” Saso v. Commissioner, 93 T.C. 730, 734-735
(1989) (citing King v. Commissioner, 88 T.C. 1042, 1050 (1987),
affd. on other grounds 857 F.2d 676 (9th Cir. 1988)).
Our jurisdiction cannot depend on the merits of petitioners’
allegations. Jurisdiction represents the power to hear a claim
and decide its merits. As the Supreme Court recently stated:
“Without jurisdiction the court cannot proceed at all in any
cause. Jurisdiction is power to declare the law, and when it
ceases to exist, the only function remaining to the court is that
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011