- 10 -
that the only place that Mr. Brody's name
appeared in the Thunderbird file was as General
Partner of BDB and not as an individual partner
of Thunderbird.
It is our position that it was Respondent's
procedure at the time that this extension was
filed to obtain consents from the partners of a
partnership and to determine the deficiencies at
the partnership level, that in this particular
case an error was made by the person who prepared
the consents who presumed that Mr. Brody was a
partner in Thunderbird and not a partner of some
other partnership that owned an interest in
Thunderbird.
It is our belief that had he known the
existence of other partners of BDB that he would
have, to be consistent, would have asked all of
the other partners of BDB to execute waivers,
that is was [sic] the position to have a
partner's tax return resolved at the partnership
level for distributions from a partnership and
that in this case if this Court makes this
deficiency applicable to Mr. Brody his return
will then be inconsistent with the return of BDB
and inconsistent with the return of all the other
partners of the BDB partnership.
Petitioners assert that the Court misconstrued their
intent. They point to the statement in Brody I that
"Petitioners do not claim that they misunderstood what was
intended by the restrictive language in the consent or that
they intended something different". Based upon Mr. Brody's
affidavit, submitted as part of the new and additional
information, petitioners argue that the Court was mistaken.
According to petitioners:
Obviously the Court was mistaken, since
Petitioners have outright stated that they did
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