- 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