- 3 -
come into play following the completion of the partnership
proceeding. In response to the affected items notice of
deficiency, petitioners filed a petition with this Court. At the
time their petition was filed, petitioners resided in Berkeley,
California. Petitioners attempted to place in issue not only the
additions to tax but also the adjustments to their 1983 and 1984
income tax attributable to their partnership items determined in
the Barrister partnership proceeding. Respondent has not issued
a notice of deficiency to petitioners for 1984.
Respondent moved to dismiss, for lack of jurisdiction, the
portion of the petition relating to the 1983 and 1984 tax and
interest assessed as a computational adjustment in the wake of
the Barrister proceeding. Conversely, petitioners, by a cross-
motion, seek a dismissal for lack of jurisdiction as to the
assessment of the 1983 and 1984 tax and interest on the ground
that respondent failed to issue a notice of deficiency for the
1983 and 1984 tax relating to the Barrister partnership items
prior to the assessment. In addition, petitioners moved to
restrain collection of the 1983 and 1984 assessed tax and
interest.
A threshold question that is key to resolving these motions
is whether we have jurisdiction to entertain controversies
involving petitioners’ assessed 1983 and 1984 partnership income
tax liabilities in the context of this affected items proceeding,
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011