- 11 -
deficiency were issued more than 3 years from the date of the
original return. Thus, respondent's action would be time-
barred, absent some exception to the general rule.
An exception is embodied in section 6229(b)(1)(B) which
provides that the 3-year period may be extended:
with respect to all partners, by an agreement entered
into by the Secretary and the tax matters partner (or
any other person authorized by the partnership in
writing to enter into such an agreement), before the
expiration of such period. [Emphasis added.]
The parties agree that there was no TMP for 1983 and, thus, a
consent could only have been executed by the "person authorized
by the partnership in writing".
Petitioners contend that the 1986 consent signed by the
general partner Mr. Farley was ineffective to extend the 3-year
period, because Mr. Farley was not "authorized by the partnership
in writing" to execute such a consent. Therefore, according to
petitioners, the 1988 FPAA was untimely, and the subsequent 1996
notice of deficiency was consequently also untimely. Respondent
contends that both the 1988 FPAA and the 1996 notice were timely.
According to respondent, Mr. Farley was "authorized by the
partnership in writing" to consent to extend the period in which
respondent could issue an FPAA, either by the authority granted
to him in the partnership agreement, or by State partnership law
alone. Respondent further contends that, even if Mr. Farley was
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011