-5-
The original tax matters person admitted in the amended
petitions in these cases that the computation of the basis in
LB&M of each of the selling LB&M shareholders is to be made at
the shareholder level. It is because that computation is to be
made at the shareholder, and not the corporate, level that
respondent argues, the current tax matters person concedes,2 and
we conclude that this Court has no jurisdiction in these proceed-
ings over the determination of the basis in LB&M of each LB&M
shareholder. See Dial USA, Inc. v. Commissioner, 95 T.C. 1, 4-6
(1990); sec. 301.6245-1T(c)(1) and (3), Temporary Proced. &
Admin. Regs., 52 Fed. Reg. 3004 (Jan. 30, 1987); see also sec.
6231(a)(5);3 sec. 301.6231(a)(5)-1T(a) and (b), Temporary Proced.
& Admin. Regs., 52 Fed. Reg. 6779 (Mar. 5, 1987). Nor do we have
jurisdiction over the other affected items referred to in the
amended petitions, which also are matters that must be determined
2 Although the position of the participating shareholders is not
altogether clear, they appear to concede that the determination
of the basis in LB&M of each of the selling LB&M shareholders is
not a subchapter S item. To the extent that the participating
shareholders contend otherwise, they are wrong. See Dial USA,
Inc. v. Commissioner, 95 T.C. 1, 4-6 (1990); sec. 301.6245-
1T(c)(1) and (3), Temporary Proced. & Admin. Regs., 52 Fed. Reg.
3004 (Jan. 30, 1987). We have considered all of the arguments of
the participating shareholders that are not discussed herein, and
we find them to be without merit.
3 All section references are to the Internal Revenue Code in
effect at all relevant times. Sec. 6244 extends and makes the
partnership audit and litigation provisions applicable to
subchapter S items.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011