Leo and Pauline Goldman - Page 11

                                       - 11 -                                         
               Petitioners also argue that respondent did not timely issue            
          the notices of deficiency in these cases.  This argument is                 
          predicated upon petitioner's belief that if the petition in the             
          Lax case was not filed in accord with section 6226, then the Lax            
          case should have been dismissed for lack of jurisdiction and the            
          period for assessment expired 1 year and 150 days after the                 
          mailing of the FPAA's because "no action was brought" sufficient            
          to suspend the assessment period within the meaning of section              
          6229(d).  As with their jurisdictional argument, petitioners seek           
          refuge behind the caption in the Lax case.                                  
              We find petitioners' claim that the proceeding in the Lax              
          case should have been dismissed for lack of jurisdiction based on           
          the caption to be without merit.  In a partnership action for               
          readjustment of partnership items, this Court has jurisdiction              
          when the Commissioner has mailed a valid FPAA and the TMP or                
          other eligible partner has timely filed a petition with the Court           
          seeking readjustment of partnership items.  Sec. 6226; Rule                 
          240(c); Meserve Drilling Partners v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo.               
          1996-72.                                                                    
               In the instant cases, respondent properly issued FPAA's to             
          the TMP of MCDA II and to Robert Lax, as a notice partner, and to           
          his wife, Wendy Lax.  A petition was timely filed by the Laxes,             
          and a decision was entered by this Court.  Both the petition and            
          the decision in the Lax case clearly identified the MCDA II                 
          partnership.  The statutory requirements have been met to                   




Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011