- 13 -
relating to the validity of, or defense against any adjustments
set forth in, the FPAA, even though the determination against the
individual partner is an 'affected item', i.e., affected by a
partnership item.").
In view of the foregoing, we hold that to the extent that
petitioner is seeking relief from liability for the computational
adjustment attributable to partnership items, the Court lacks
jurisdiction to consider her claim.3 See Mann-Howard v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1992-537; see also Carmel v.
Commissioner, 98 T.C. 265 (1992).
Conclusion
In order to reflect the foregoing,
An order granting respondent's
Motion to Dismiss for Lack of
Jurisdiction and to Strike
Partnership Items will be issued.
3 At the hearing and on brief, respondent's counsel
represented that it is generally the Commissioner's practice to
consider administratively a taxpayer's claim that the taxpayer is
entitled to innocent spouse relief with respect to a
computational adjustment at the same time that such claim is
considered with respect to the affected items (such as additions
to tax) that are the subject of a petition for redetermination.
Respondent's counsel also represented that if the innocent spouse
issue is litigated, it is generally the Commissioner's practice
to abate the tax assessed pursuant to the computational
adjustment if the Court decides that the taxpayer is entitled to
innocent spouse relief with respect to affected items.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
Last modified: May 25, 2011