- 27 -
paragraph (1) of this subsection) be treated as a
party to the proceeding.
The above provision is an integral part of the action
described by section 6226(b). See Amesbury Apts., Ltd.
v. Commissioner, 95 T.C. 227 (1990); Georgetown Petroleum-
Edith Forrest v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1994-13; and
Madison Recycling Associates v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo.
1992-605, in which the petitions for readjustment were
filed by partners other than the tax matters partner, and
the Court considered and rejected the partners' contention
that assessment of the tax on the subject partnership items
was barred under the period of limitations on assessment.
While an improper petition for readjustment under
section 6226 does not convey jurisdiction to readjust the
adjustments determined in the notice of FPAA, it may permit
the Court to determine the validity of the notice of FPAA,
and if the notice of FPAA is invalid, to dismiss the case
on that ground. Triangle Investors Ltd. Partnership v.
Commissioner, supra at 613; Genesis Oil & Gas, Ltd. v.
Commissioner, supra at 564; see Holstein ET IV, Ltd. v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1992-716; cf. Frazell v.
Commissioner, 88 T.C. 1405 (1987). In that event, the
Commissioner is foreclosed from assessing a deficiency in
tax, under normal circumstances, until a valid notice of
Page: Previous 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011