- 23 -
argues, the Court is prohibited from allocating partnership items
to those partners because we do not have jurisdiction to do so.
Petitioner also argues that pursuant to section 6231, the
partnership items of the partners who have accepted the out-of-
pocket settlement have been converted to nonpartnership items.
As a result, petitioner argues that these partners have no
partnership interest.
Respondent argues that the Court has jurisdiction to
determine the allocation of items at issue in these cases because
the items are partnership items. Respondent contends that in
order to determine the allocations to be made to the partners who
have not settled on an individual basis, it is necessary for the
Court to consider the capital accounts of all of the partners.
Respondent argues that the TEFRA provisions are procedural,
and affect only the type of proceeding which may be brought, but
do not alter the substantive law of partnerships. Thus,
respondent argues, the provisions do not have the effect of
removing partners from the partnership.
The items at issue fall within the definition of partnership
items. The determination of the allocation of partnership items
to the parties to this action requires that we consider the
partnership aggregate of each item including partnership capital.
A partner's allocable interest in each item is determined based
on the share of total partnership capital contributed by the
Page: Previous 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011