Estate of James T. Callaway, Deceased, Elizabeth N. Callaway, Executrix, and Elizabeth N. Callaway - Page 17

                                       - 17 -                                         

          that her husband filed for bankruptcy.8  Specifically, the                  
          Commissioner argued that the taxpayer's partnership items                   
          converted to nonpartnership items by virtue of section                      
          6231(a)(12), which provides that a husband and wife who have a              
          joint interest in a partnership generally shall be treated as one           
          person (or partner).                                                        
          In rejecting the Commissioner's position, we noted that                     
          section 301.6231(a)(12)-1T(a), Temporary Proced. & Admin. Regs.,            
          52 Fed. Reg. 6793 (Mar. 5, 1987), establishes an exception to the           
          general rule stated in section 6231(a)(12) by providing that                
          spouses holding a joint interest in a partnership are treated as            
          separate partners.  Further, focusing on the bankruptcy rule set            
          forth in section 301.6231(c)-7T(a), Temporary Proced. & Admin.              
          Regs., 52 Fed. Reg. 6793 (Mar. 5, 1987), we concluded that the              
          temporary regulation "concerns itself with the treatment of items           
          as partnership items with respect to a partner named as a debtor            
          in a bankruptcy proceeding; partnership items of such a partner             
          are treated as nonpartnership items."  Dubin v. Commissioner,               
          supra at 334.  We concluded our analysis as follows:                        

          8  The Commissioner's position was born of the fact that the                
          Commissioner had not notified the taxpayer of the partnership               
          level proceedings but rather issued the taxpayer a notice of                
          deficiency.  The case was before the Court on the parties' cross-           
          motions to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.  The Commissioner              
          argued that the case should be dismissed on the ground that the             
          petition was not timely filed, and the taxpayer moved to dismiss            
          on the ground that the notice of deficiency was invalid.                    

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