Davenport Recycling Associates, Sam Winer, Tax Matters Partner - Page 4

                                        - 4 -                                         
               Davenport is a limited partnership subject to the unified              
          partnership audit and litigation procedures set forth in sections           
          6221 through 6233, added to the Code by the Tax Equity and Fiscal           
          Responsibility Act of 1982 (TEFRA), Pub. L. 97-248, sec. 402(a),            
          96 Stat. 648.                                                               
               Respondent issued notices of beginning of administrative               
          Proceeding (NBAP) to Davenport for the years 1982, 1983, 1984,              
          and 1985 on September 11, 1984, November 8, 1984, January 29,               
          1987, and October 27, 1986, respectively.  Copies of those NBAP's           
          were issued to all notice partners of Davenport, including                  
          participants.  On May 15, 1989, respondent issued notices of                
          final partnership administrative adjustment (FPAA) to Davenport,            
          proposing adjustments to Davenport's 1982 through 1985 years.               
          The notices of FPAA were mailed to Winer as TMP, as well as to              
          participants and all other notice partners for the 1982 through             
          1985 years of Davenport.                                                    
               On June 9, 1989, a petition for readjustment for the years             
          1982 through 1985 was filed with this Court on behalf of                    
          Davenport by Winer, who identified himself as the TMP.  When the            
          petition was filed in this case, Davenport had its principal                
          place of business in Clearwater, Florida, and participants                  
          resided in Oak Brook, Illinois.                                             
               This case subsequently was concluded before trial by a                 
          concession at the partnership level of the adjustments proposed             
          by respondent.  The case was conceded at the instruction of                 




Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011