- 16 - partnership or "affected" item.7 If an FPAA is issued before the end of the 3-year period of limitations of section 6229(a), that period is suspended for the time during which a partnership-level proceeding is brought and a decision in that proceeding becomes final, and for 1 year thereafter. Sec. 6229(d). Petitioner's argument is without merit. It is well established that the issue of the timeliness of an FPAA must be raised during the partnership-level proceeding, and thus may not be raised subsequently by petitioner in this partner-level proceeding. Crowell v. Commissioner, 102 T.C. 683, 693 (1994). Second, petitioner argues that the notices were untimely because respondent artificially extended the partnership proceeding by needless delay and thus should be estopped from issuing the notices. This argument is equally meritless. Estoppel constitutes an affirmative defense with the result that, in respect of its impact on the timeliness of the notices of deficiency, the burden of proof is on petitioner. Rules 39, 142(a); Hofstetter v. Commissioner, 98 T.C. 695, 701 (1992). We see no need to detail the various elements which are essential to a successful assertion of equitable estoppel. See Lignos v. United States, 439 F.2d 1365, 1368 (2d Cir. 1971); Norfolk S. Corp. v. Commissioner, 104 T.C. 13, 59-61, 7 Consistent with our decision in Hambrose Leasing v. Commissioner, 99 T.C. 298 (1992), the deductions at issue are "affected" items.Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011