- 5 -
days after its entry. In this regard, petitioners claim that
there was a fraud upon the Court as to the entry of the decision
in the partnership proceeding. Respondent counters that,
assuming the Court was fraudulently misled about the notification
of participating partners, we lack jurisdiction to consider such
matters in the context of petitioners’ affected items proceeding.
Petitioners also claim that they were denied due process. Thus,
petitioners argue that the decision in the Barrister partnership
proceeding is not res judicata and binding as to them.
In addition to their contentions as to the validity of the
prior partnership proceeding, petitioners also maintain that
respondent was required to issue a notice of deficiency before
assessing and attempting to collect the 1983 and 1984 income tax
attributable to their Barrister partnership items. In other
words, petitioners interpret the Internal Revenue Code as
requiring respondent to issue a notice of deficiency before
assessing a computational adjustment reflecting the partnership
items, even though a partnership proceeding has been completed
pursuant to sections 6221 through 6233.2
Discussion
2 Unless otherwise indicated, section references are to the
Internal Revenue Code in effect for the periods under
consideration, and Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of
Practice and Procedure.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011