- 11 -
As previously mentioned, this Court has no jurisdiction to
consider challenges to computational adjustments in an affected
items proceeding. Bradley v. Commissioner, supra; Saso v.
Commissioner, supra; Maxwell v. Commissioner, supra; Palmer v.
Commissioner, supra. In the instant case, petitioner is directly
challenging the computational adjustment made pursuant to the
dismissal of the partnership proceeding, albeit for purposes of
computing the additions to tax for negligence and substantial
understatement of income tax.4 Nevertheless, the fact remains
that petitioner would have us review a computational adjustment
in an affected items proceeding. This we may not do, even for
the limited purpose advocated by petitioner, because it would
necessarily require us, contrary to the statutory scheme of the
unified partnership audit and litigation provisions, to determine
partnership items in an affected items proceeding.
Petitioner's remaining contentions do not merit any
discussion other than to note that the validity of a properly
mailed FPAA is not contingent on actual receipt by a notice
partner. Crowell v. Commissioner, 102 T.C. 683, 692 (1994).
In order to reflect the foregoing,
4 It should be recalled that the computation of each of the
additions to tax at issue in this case takes into account the
amount of the underpayment of tax, see supra note 3, and that it
is the underpayment of tax that respondent assessed as the
computational adjustment at the conclusion of the partnership
proceeding.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011