- 6 -
Initially, we note that we have jurisdiction to consider the
question of our jurisdiction over the parties or subject matter.
Pyo v. Commissioner, 83 T.C. 626, 632 (1984).
1. Res Judicata--Petitioners contend that the doctrine of
res judicata does not bar relitigation of the Barrister
partnership items because they are presenting issues regarding
those items not addressed in the partnership proceeding.
Accordingly, they argue that they are not bound by the Barrister
proceeding. Respondent, without agreeing with their underlying
arguments, argues that petitioners should have moved this Court
to reconsider or vacate the decision in the Barrister partnership
proceeding. Petitioners have framed the issue in a manner that
suggests two separate paths of inquiry to determine whether we
have jurisdiction over the partnership items in this proceeding.
First, we must analyze the statutory partnership provisions to
determine whether we can consider the tax assessments from a
partnership proceeding in petitioners' affected items proceeding.
If we decide that the statutory provisions do not offer the
relief sought, we then consider petitioners’ constitutional claim
that they were deprived of procedural due process.
Sections 6221 through 6231 provide for a unified partnership
proceeding to determine the tax treatment of partnership items
separate from and independent of a partner's deficiency
proceeding involving nonpartnership items. Maxwell v.
Commissioner, 87 T.C. 783, 787-788 (1986); H. Conf. Rept. 97-760,
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011