Oceanic Leasing, Douglas F. Spaulding, Tax Matters Partner - Page 12

                                       - 12 -                                         

          (1990); cf. N.C.F. Energy Partners v. Commissioner, 89 T.C. 741             
          (1987).                                                                     
               That a partnership is a sham does not preclude applicability           
          of the provisions of TEFRA.  Section 6233(a) provides:                      
                    (a) General Rule.--If a partnership return is                     
               filed by an entity for a taxable year but it is                        
               determined that the entity is not a partnership for                    
               such year, then, to the extent provided in regulations,                
               the provisions of this subchapter are hereby extended                  
               in respect of such year to such entity and its items                   
               and to persons holding an interest in such entity.                     
          See also sec. 301.6233-1T (a), (c)(1), Temporary Proced. & Admin.           
          Regs., 52 Fed. Reg. 6779, 6795 (Mar. 5, 1987).                              
               Willner does not deny that Hardin's activities were                    
          fraudulent.  He does not deny that we have jurisdiction with                
          respect to the partnership that is the subject of these                     
          proceedings, and he has stipulated that the FPAA was timely.                
          Willner contends that section 6233 does not apply to him because            
          he was not a partner in the entity that filed a partnership                 
          return for 1986.  He relies on the 21 Schedules K-1 attached to             
          the Form 1065, which did not include a Schedule K-1 for him.  He            
          seeks relief on the basis that the Schedules K-1 on which he                
          relied in claiming losses were not attached to any partnership              
          return.  He defines the issue as:  "Were Arthur and Susan Willner           
          partners in the entity that filed a partnership return for 1986?"           
          Using the words of the statute, we would define the issue as                







Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011