- 47 -
permit an inference that the notice of FPAA was not mailed
to the notice partners.
We also reject petitioners' final point that the FPAA
Certified Mail Listing is unreliable and should be excluded
from evidence by reason of the fact that it records the
mailing of 29 letters, whereas there were only 27 partners
in the partnership. Petitioners fail to take note of the
fact that the notice of FPAA was mailed to petitioners
"Charles P. & Louetta J. Niven" at two different addresses,
and that the notice of FPAA was also mailed to "Robert L.
Jondele" at two different addresses.
Petitioners' final contention is that, as a matter
of law, the expiration of the period of limitations on
assessment, prescribed by section 6229, prior to the
mailing of the notice of FPAA, made it impossible for
respondent to mail the notice of FPAA to notice
partners within the time required by section 6223(d)(2).
Petitioners contend that, as a result of the expiration
of the period of limitations, all of the partnership items
of the notice partners were automatically converted to
nonpartnership items under the remedy provision of section
6223(e). In effect, petitioners contend that the period of
limitations on assessment set forth in section 6229 is
Page: Previous 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011