3
Following concessions,2 the sole issue for decision is
whether respondent was required by the partnership audit and
litigation procedures, enacted in 1982 as a part of TEFRA, to
issue notices of final partnership administrative adjustments
(FPAA) with respect to Westco and Makalu within the statutory
period.3 Secs. 6221, 6223(a)(2), 6231(a)(1)(B). If respondent
was required to issue FPAA's with respect to Westco and Makalu
and failed to do so, we lack jurisdiction over these cases and
petitioners' motions must be granted. Harrell v. Commissioner,
91 T.C. 242, 243 (1988); Frazell v. Commissioner, 88 T.C. 1405
(1987)).
Petitioners contend that the resolution of disputed
partnership items with respect to Westco and Makalu should occur
at the partnership level, not the individual partner level.
Respondent alleges that the partnerships fall within the small
2
The parties stipulated that the Court does not have
jurisdiction over respondent's adjustments to: (1) D&J for the
taxable years ending Sept. 30, 1985, and Sept. 30, 1986; (2) J&J
for the taxable years ending Sept. 30, 1985, and Sept. 30, 1986;
and (3) MMM for 1985. The parties further stipulated that the
Court has jurisdiction over respondent's adjustments to: (1) D&J
for the taxable years ending Sept. 30, 1987, Sept. 30, 1988, and
Sept. 30, 1989; (2) J&J for the taxable years ending Sept. 30,
1987, Sept. 30, 1988, and Sept. 30, 1989; and (3) MMM for years
1986 through 1989.
3
In their motions to dismiss, petitioners also moved for
litigation costs and attorney's fees under sec. 7430. That
motion is premature and not properly filed. See Rule 231. Were
we to consider it, in light of our decision in this case,
petitioners' request would be denied as moot.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011