Estate of James T. Callaway, Deceased, Elizabeth N. Callaway, Executrix, and Elizabeth N. Callaway - Page 16

                                       - 16 -                                         

          limitations set forth in section 6501(a) by providing that the              
          assessment procedure may be expedited where a request for prompt            
          assessment is filed on behalf of a decedent, the decedent's                 
          estate, or a corporation.  Section 6501(d) does not provide                 
          prompt assessment relief to a surviving spouse.  See Garfinkel v.           
          Commissioner, 67 T.C. 1028, 1032-1033 (1977); Estate of Severt v.           
          Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1998-34.  Similarly, we conclude that              
          section 301.6231(c)-8T, Temporary Proced. & Admin. Regs., 52 Fed.           
          Reg. 6794 (Mar. 5, 1987), which provides that partnership items             
          will be treated as nonpartnership items "with respect to a                  
          partner on whose behalf a request for a prompt assessment of tax            
          under section 6501(d) is filed", does not apply to the surviving            
          spouse of a deceased partner.                                               
               We note that in Dubin v. Commissioner, 99 T.C. 325, 334                
          (1992), we rejected a similar argument under analogous                      
          circumstances.  In Dubin v. Commissioner, supra, the taxpayer and           
          her husband held a joint interest in a partnership.  Because the            
          taxpayer's husband was named as a debtor in a bankruptcy                    
          proceeding, his partnership items converted to nonpartnership               
          items pursuant to section 301.6231(c)-7T(a), Temporary Proced. &            
          Admin. Regs., 52 Fed. Reg. 6793 (Mar. 5, 1987).  However, in a              
          reversal of the positions of the parties in the instant case, the           
          Commissioner argued in Dubin that the partnership items of the              
          taxpayer (wife) had converted to nonpartnership items at the time           

Page:  Previous  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011