- 8 -
and she received none. Petitioner, an indirect partner under
section 6231(a)(10), has not alleged that she was identified as a
partner entitled to notice under section 6223(c). Further, the
record is bereft of any facts that would allow us to conclude
that petitioner was entitled to notice from respondent under
section 6223.
Finally, petitioner prays, should the Court find the
statutory notice of deficiency was not issued timely, that the
Court direct respondent to make available to her any settlement
offer that was made available to other partners of Davenport.
Since we find the notice of deficiency to have been issued
timely, we shall not address this issue.
Negligence
Petitioner argues that her investment in Davenport through
Republic was: (1) Without tax motivation; (2) made by an
unsophisticated investor based upon the advice of a competent,
independent professional; (3) therefore not negligent; and (4) in
any event, not subject to the section 6653(a)(2) addition to tax
for her returns due prior to January 1, 1982 (tax years 1979 and
1980).
Respondent's determinations, contained in the notice of
deficiency, are presumed correct, and petitioner bears the burden
of proving otherwise. Rule 142(a); Welch v. Helvering, 290 U.S.
111, 115 (1933).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011