- 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