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 29

                                       - 29 -                                         
             outcome of the proceeding, as defined by section 6226(d).                
             In this connection, we note that respondent denies that the              
             period of limitations expired before she mailed the notice               
             of FPAA to the tax matters partner and denies that                       
             petitioners' partnership items became nonpartnership items.              
             Sec. 6226(d)(1).                                                         
                  Respondent argues that, even if the subject notice                  
             of FPAA was mailed after the expiration of the period of                 
             limitations on assessments set forth in section 6229, the                
             petition must be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because              
             it was not filed within the time permitted by section 6226               
             (b).  In this regard, respondent contends that this case                 
             is governed by Genesis Oil & Gas, Ltd. v. Commissioner,                  
             93 T.C. 562 (1989), in which we dismissed a petition for                 
             readjustment for lack of jurisdiction because it had been                
             mailed to the Court after the filing deadline provided in                
             section 6226.  In that case, as mentioned above, we held                 
             that we did not have jurisdiction to consider whether the                
             notice of FPAA had been issued beyond the period of                      
             limitations on assessment set forth in section 6229.  Id.                
             at 565-566.                                                              
                  Petitioners' motion to dismiss the instant petition is              
             based upon the allegation that respondent has not met her                
             burden of proving that the notice of FPAA was mailed to the              






Page:  Previous  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  30  31  32  33  34  35  36  37  38  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011