- 3 -
This is the second opinion that we have issued in this
case. In our first opinion, Brody v. Commissioner, filed
at T.C. Memo. 1988-203 (hereafter Brody I), we addressed
petitioners' motion for summary judgment in which they took
the position that the adjustment, described above, is
barred under the period of limitations on assessment and
collection prescribed by section 6501(a). Petitioners'
motion was based upon the fact that the special consent to
extend the period of limitations on IRS Form 872-A on which
respondent relied in issuing the notice of deficiency is
expressly limited to adjustments from Thunderbird.
Petitioners argued that the subject adjustment is outside
the scope of the special consent because they did not
directly own a partnership interest in Thunderbird but
owned such interest only indirectly through Mr. Brody's
partnership interest in BDB.
In Brody I, we held that the subject adjustment was
well within the scope of the consent and, accordingly, was
not barred by the period of limitations on assessment and
collection in section 6501(a). In interpreting the special
consent, we took note of the fact that petitioners are the
ultimate taxpayers with respect to a share of the
partnership items reported by Thunderbird for 1978, and
petitioners deducted on their 1978 return a share of the
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011