- 22 -
regarding the proceeding within 45 days after the date
on which that notice was mailed.
Under the circumstances, we are not persuaded that Mrs.
Callaway's earlier letter to respondent dated December 23, 1991,
wherein Mrs. Callaway requested that her partnership items be
treated as nonpartnership items, constitutes a qualifying
election within the meaning of section 6223(e)(3)(B).
Finally, we are satisfied that Mrs. Callaway's letter dated
December 23, 1991, in which Mrs. Callaway unilaterally attempted
to terminate any extension of the period of limitations
concerning the partnership for the years in issue, was
ineffective to overcome the TMP's broad grant of authority under
section 6229(b)(1)(B) to execute agreements to extend the period
of limitations. Because Mrs. Callaway does not assert that the
notices of deficiency for affected items were issued beyond 1
year from the date that the U.S. Court of Federal Claims'
decision in the partnership level proceedings became final, see
sec. 6229(d), we deem the point conceded.
In sum, we conclude that Mrs. Callaway's partnership items
did not convert to nonpartnership items, and the notices of
deficiency for affected items are valid insofar as they were
issued to Mrs. Callaway. Petitioners have failed to prove that
the period of limitations expired prior to the issuance of the
notices of deficiency for affected items to Mrs. Callaway.
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011