- 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 ofPage: Previous 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011