- 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 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011