- 21 -
California,9 Colorado,10 Connecticut,11 and Louisiana.12 In this
case, the relevant State law in force at the time of the signing
of the 1986 consent was also the UPA and ULPA, as enacted by the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.13 The UPA statutes discussed above
are all substantially identical to each other, and to the UPA
(1914 Act) (U.L.A.) section 9. The ULPA statutes discussed above
are all substantially identical to each other, and to the Revised
ULPA (1976) (U.L.A.) section 403. Given the similarity of the
statutes involved, we conclude that, under Pennsylvania law, the
power to extend the section 6229(a) period of limitations is
within the scope of partnership business, and the partnership
9 Cal. Corp. Code sec. 15509 (West 1991); Iowa Investors
Baker v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1992-490. Iowa Investors Baker
does not discuss Cal. Corp. Code sec. 15509 (West 1991),
regarding the rights of general partners in a limited
partnership.
10 Colo. Rev. Stat. secs. 7-60-109, 7-62-403 (1986);
Georgetown Petroleum-Edith Forrest v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo.
1994-13.
11 Conn. Gen. Stat. Ann. secs. 34-17, 34-47 (West Supp.
1997); Cambridge Research & Development Group v. Commissioner, 97
T.C. 287, 298 (1991).
12 La. Civ. Code Ann. art. 2814 (West 1994); Medical &
Business Facilities Ltd. v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1994-38
(while not part of the UPA, article 2814 designed to bring
Louisiana law into conformity with that of 48 States which have
adopted the UPA), revd. on other grounds 60 F.3d 207 (5th Cir.
1995).
13 15 Pa. Cons. Stat. Ann. sec. 8533 (West 1995), derived
from 59 Pa. Cons. Stat. sec. 523 (West 1987), and 15 Pa. Cons.
Stat. Ann. sec. 8321 (West 1995), reenacting 59 Pa. Cons. Stat.
sec. 321 (West 1987).
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011