- 11 - administrative resolution of the partner's tax liability and cannot be the subject of a partnership proceeding. See, e.g., Maxwell v. Commissioner, 87 T.C. 783, 788-789 (1986). Petitioner has made various arguments based on an assumption that respondent included partners who have accepted the out-of- pocket settlement in her calculations on which the proposed decision documents are based. Petitioner bears the burden of proof in these cases. Rule 142. We begin by noting that there is no evidence in the record concerning partners who have accepted the out-of-pocket settlement. Therefore, we have no indication that any such partners were included in respondent's calculations. We will, however, further address petitioner's arguments. Petitioner argues that the partnership income, losses, credits, and liabilities calculated pursuant to the settlement agreement should be allocated to a limited group of partners. Petitioner contends that any partners who have accepted the out- of-pocket settlement offer from respondent are not parties to this proceeding pursuant to section 6226. Therefore, petitioner 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.Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011