- 15 -
adjustment. In addition, requiring a notice of deficiency as a
predicate for such assessment of partnership items after the
conclusion of a partnership proceeding would ignore congressional
intent to provide for a separate partnership proceeding.
We note that petitioners concede that a notice of deficiency
with respect to partnership items would not give taxpayers the
right to relitigate the partnership items. In addition, the
partnership provisions safeguard due process rights by providing
taxpayers with notice of the partnership adjustment and an
opportunity to participate in the partnership proceeding.
Petitioners’ approach would add a procedural step that creates a
mere formality and does not provide any additional due process
protection.
In light of the lengthy list of cases that hold that a
notice of deficiency is not required before assessment of a
computational adjustment, we find petitioners' argument that such
a notice is required unpersuasive. We will deny petitioners'
motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. Because the
assessment of petitioners’ 1983 and 1984 income tax and interest
based on the decision entered in the Barrister proceeding is not
within our subject-matter jurisdiction in this case, it follows
that we have no authority to restrain collection of the assessed
1983 and 1984 income tax and interest.
To reflect the foregoing,
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011