- 12 -
abide by the decision in Alhouse v. Commissioner, supra. The
participating partners persistently attempted to resuscitate a
challenge to the Partnership’s tax classification status, as
documented in a series of motions submitted during the pendency
of the TEFRA case.
Finally, because the various TMPs throughout the TEFRA
proceeding were investors similarly situated to petitioners, who
were not privy to the Partnership’s operation and subscription
information, notice to the nonparticipating partners was
apparently not feasible until respondent procured the
identification list. Even if the failure to inform petitioners
of the partnership proceedings constituted a dereliction of the
obligations of the TMP, the notice responsibilities under the
TEFRA procedures are allocated to the TMP, and not the IRS. See
sec. 6223(g). The nonperformance of the requisite TEFRA notice
function by a TMP is not an IRS error requiring the abatement of
interest. See Jaffe v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2004-122; Fargo
v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2004-13.
To reflect the foregoing,
An appropriate Order and
Decision will be entered
granting Respondent’s Motion.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Last modified: May 25, 2011