Greenberg Brothers Partnership #12, a.k.a. Lone Wolf McQuade Associates, and Richard M. Greenberg, Tax Matters Partner - Page 11

                                       - 11 -                                         

               We disagree with Mrs. Locke's construction of the statute.             
          The language in section 6226(d)(1)(A) parallels that of the                 
          bankruptcy rule.  Both are specific in targeting only the debtor            
          and in converting only the partnership items of the debtor.                 
          Moreover, Mrs. Locke's expansive reading of section 6226(d)(1)(A)           
          is contrary to the fundamental principle of statutory                       
          construction that where a statute is clear on its face,                     
          unequivocal evidence of legislative purpose is required to                  
          override the plain meaning of the words used.  Huntsberry v.                
          Commissioner, 83 T.C. 742, 747-748 (1984).  As Mrs. Locke has               
          proffered no such evidence, we decline to adopt the broad                   
          interpretation urged upon us.                                               
               Respondent argues that the resolution of this issue is                 
          controlled by this Court's decision in Dubin v. Commissioner, 99            
          T.C. 325 (1992).  In Dubin this Court addressed the impact of the           
          bankruptcy rule upon a taxpayer who held a joint interest in a              
          partnership with her husband and with whom she had filed a joint            
          return.  The taxpayer's husband was named as a debtor in a                  
          bankruptcy proceeding prior to the issuance of a single notice of           
          deficiency that disallowed certain partnership losses and                   
          credits.  The taxpayer filed a motion to dismiss for lack of                
          jurisdiction on the ground that respondent's notice of deficiency           
          was invalid for failure to comply with the TEFRA procedures.  We            
          noted that section 6231(a)(12) provides a general rule, subject             





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011