- 53 -
lite for two limited partnerships purportedly authorized to
perform the duties of a TMP in proceedings before the IRS or
other tax or administrative agency. We held that the receiver
was not a partner and thus could not meet the statutory
requirement that the TMP be a partner. The receiver was not
qualified to file a petition in this Court because he was not a
TMP and also because the receiver's authorization to act in
administrative proceedings did not authorize him to act before
this Court. Id. at 62-63. Although Winer's ability to act as
TMP was limited to the performance of "administrative services",
at the time Winer filed the petition in this Court he was the
sole general partner of Davenport and thus met the statutory
requirement that the TMP be a partner. Therefore, by the terms
of the controlling statute, Winer was not prohibited from filing
a petition with this Court.
In this case, respondent mailed FPAA's to Winer as TMP of
Davenport at two separate addresses, in addition to mailing an
FPAA simply to Davenport's TMP, without identifying Winer as
such. Furthermore, copies of the FPAA's issued to Davenport were
mailed to all notice partners of Davenport, including
participants. No argument was made by participants that there
was no notice or inadequate notice. Instead, participants argue
that respondent, by mailing duplicate notices of FPAA's to Winer,
as TMP of Davenport, created the circumstances in the instant
Page: Previous 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011