- 55 -
Finkelman, Edmond A. Malouf (Malouf), and Mishawaka. Malouf was
the partner with the largest profits interest. Finkelman, who
was not the TMP, filed a petition within the 90 days reserved for
filing a petition by the TMP. In the petition, Finkelman
identified himself as the TMP. In addition, before the filing of
the petition, Finkelman had prepared and signed all the
partnership returns and acted as Mishawaka's managing partner and
accountant. Finkelman had identified himself as the TMP in his
correspondence with the other partners and advised them that he
would be filing a petition in this Court on their behalf. Id. at
356-358.
One year after he had filed the petition, Finkelman notified
the other partners that he could no longer finance the litigation
and advised them to form committees to finance and organize the
litigation. No partner took any action to disavow, repudiate, or
manifest objection to Finkelman's filing of the petition, until 4
years afterward when a participant moved to dismiss the case for
lack of jurisdiction on the grounds that Finkelman was not the
proper TMP. Id. at 358-359.
In Mishawaka, we denied participant's motion to dismiss for
lack of jurisdiction and held that we had jurisdiction over the
case. We reached this holding by finding that the doctrine of
ratification, which applied in deficiency cases, Kraasch v.
Commissioner, 70 T.C. 623 (1978), applied in TEFRA cases as well
Page: Previous 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011