- 41 -
support of that ground, petitioners assert that even if we
find that the notice of FPAA was mailed to the notice
partners, it was not mailed until after the expiration of
the period of limitations on assessment and, thus, was not
mailed within the time required by section 6223(d)(2).
In effect, petitioners contend that section 6223(d)(2)
incorporates the period of limitations on assessment set
forth in section 6229 and that expiration of the period
of limitations precludes timely notice under section
6223(d)(2) and, in effect, is one of the events described
by section 6231(b)(1) under which partnership items become
nonpartnership items.
We agree that if the Commissioner, as the Secretary's
delegate, fails to mail the notice of FPAA to any notice
partner within the time prescribed by section 6223(d)(2),
and if the partnership level proceedings are finished at
the time the Commissioner mails notice of the proceedings
to the notice partner, then the partnership items of the
notice partner are treated as nonpartnership items under
section 6223(e)(2) unless that partner elects otherwise.
In this case, however, as discussed below, we find no
factual or legal basis on which to conclude that respondent
failed to mail the notice of FPAA to notice partners as
Page: Previous 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011