- 10 -
auditing. Among those identified by the revenue agent was
Willner. A copy of the FPAA was sent to Willner.
In the petition filed March 1, 1993, the adjustments in the
FPAA were challenged on the following grounds:
6. The facts on which the Petitioner relies as
the basis of his case are as follows:
A. Not all income and expenses shown on the
partnership's tax return are the result of
fictitious, sham transactions;
B. Some of the business activity actually
occurred; and
C. Property purchased by the partnership was:
(a) depreciable; (b) had a useful life of at
least 3 years; (c) was tangible personal
property; and (d) was placed in service
during the taxable year in a trade or
business.
7. Petitioner further alleges that the statutory
period for making an assessment for the taxable year
1986 has expired.
Trial of this case commenced in San Francisco, California, in
September 1994. Calef appeared by counsel and moved for
dismissal of the case for lack of jurisdiction as to her,
claiming that she was not a partner in the partnership that was a
subject of this proceeding. The trial was thereafter continued
several times for purposes of settlement discussions among
various interested partners. In July 1995, Calef's motion to
dismiss was withdrawn as a result of a settlement reached between
herself and respondent. On August 7, 1995, respondent filed a
Motion for Entry of Decision pursuant to Rule 248(b). The
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011