- 6 -
The use of a name other than MCDA II in the
caption disregarded the rules of practice of this Court
and effectively deprived the other partners in that
venture of notice that a TEFRA petition had been filed
which would have enabled them to exercise their
statutory rights. The name in the caption described a
non-existent partnership or a partnership in which the
Goldman Petitioners had no interest. The Lax
Petitioners never established their eligibility as
Notice Partners to file a TEFRA petition in the Tax
Court.
We believe petitioners advance essentially two theories.
Petitioners argue that the additions to tax should not be imposed
because the affected items notices of deficiency were mailed to
them beyond the applicable period of limitations. Petitioners
contend that under section 6229(d), the time for respondent to
issue notices for affected items expired on March 20, 1993, which
is 1 year after the 150th day following the date of the issuance
of the FPAA's to MCDA II's TMP and the Laxes on October 21, 1991.
Petitioners also claim they did not receive notice of the
partnership level proceeding in the Lax case, and thus the
affected items notices of deficiency are invalid and we lack
jurisdiction over this proceeding.
When a jurisdictional issue is raised, as well as a statute
of limitations issue, we must first decide whether we have
jurisdiction in the case before considering the statute of
limitations defense. King v. Commissioner, 88 T.C. 1042, 1050
(1987), affd. on other grounds 857 F.2d 676 (9th Cir. 1988).
The question of jurisdiction is a fundamental question that
can be raised at any time by either party or by the Court.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011