- 14 -
As previously noted, in his response to respondent's request
for admissions, petitioner replied "No" to paragraphs 9 and 10,
which stated that, for 1992 and 1993, the Partnership "did not
file the statement required by Treas. Reg. 301.6231(a)(1)-1T(b)
to elect treatment under the provisions of Subtitle F, Chapter
63, Subchapter C (I.R.C. sec. 6221 et al.) of the Internal
Revenue Code." However, it is apparent from the record that the
election contemplated by the above regulation was not filed for
1992 or 1993, and petitioner does not contend otherwise in his
"Opposition to Motion for Partial Summary Judgment" (Opposition).
Rather, petitioner argues in his Opposition that "the partnership
had no need to make a special, separately-signed unanimous
election to * * * apply the consolidated audit and notice
provisions" for 1992 and 1993 because, for various reasons, the
Partnership did not fall within the small partnership exception
of section 6231(a)(1)(B) during those years.
In response to petitioner's argument, upon our examination
of the record, including the Forms 1065 for 1992 and 1993 and
Schedules K-1 attached thereto, we are convinced that the
Partnership was indeed a small partnership within the meaning of
section 6231(a)(1)(B) in those years. In 1992 and 1993, the
Partnership consisted of 10 or fewer partners based on the
counting rule of section 6231(a)(1)(B)(i), which provides that a
husband and wife (and their estates) shall be treated as 1
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011