Wayne Caldwell Escrow Partnership, Roy Dimon, John and Mary Schuenemann, Joseph and Louise O'Neal, Charles and Lovetta Niven, Chalton and Cynthia Thomas, Partners Other Than the Tax Matters Partner - Page 28

                                       - 28 -                                         
             FPAA is issued.  Genesis Oil & Gas, Ltd. v. Commissioner,                
             supra.                                                                   
                  In order to be valid, a notice of FPAA must provide                 
             adequate or minimal notice that the Commissioner has                     
             finally determined adjustments to the partnership return.                
             Triangle Investors Ltd. Partnership v. Commissioner, supra               
             at 613; Chomp Associates v. Commissioner, 91 T.C. 1069,                  
             1073-1075 (1988); Clovis I v. Commissioner, 88 T.C. 980,                 
             982 (1987).  The validity of a notice of FPAA that has been              
             properly mailed is not contingent upon actual receipt by                 
             either the tax matters partner or a notice partner.                      
             Crowell v. Commissioner, supra at 692; cf. Yusko v.                      
             Commissioner, 89 T.C. 806, 810 (1987).                                   
                  The parties to this case contend that the subject                   
             petition for readjustment must be dismissed by the Court                 
             for lack of jurisdiction.  Respondent's motion to dismiss                
             is based upon the fact that the petition for readjustment                
             was filed by partners other than the tax matters partner                 
             more than 150 days after the date on which the notice of                 
             FPAA was issued to the tax matters partner, and, thus,                   
             was filed beyond the jurisdictional time limit for such a                
             petition, as set forth in section 6226(b)(1).  Respondent                
             does not seek dismissal of the instant petition on the                   
             ground that petitioners do not have an interest in the                   






Page:  Previous  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  30  31  32  33  34  35  36  37  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011