- 14 -
notification to the Court, only applies to settlements with
participating partners, and the evidence does not establish that
any of the participating partners in the instant cases ever
entered into prior cash settlements with respondent. Also, Rule
248(c)(2), which requires respondent to give notice to the TMP's
when a partner enters into a settlement, was not effective until
September 1, 1988, see Note to Rule 248(c)(2), 90 T.C. 1376
(1988), and there is no credible evidence that respondent failed
to comply with Rule 248(c)(2) after that date.
For the period January 19, 1984, through September 1, 1989, a
provision of respondent’s manual provided that upon receipt of a
settlement in a TEFRA partnership audit or proceeding,
respondent’s Service Center was to notify the appropriate TMP’s of
the settlement, and the responsibility then fell on the TMP’s to
notify other partners of the settlement. Movants argue that
respondent did not follow this manual procedure with regard to the
Elektra Hemisphere tax shelter partnerships, and therefore that
all movants herein (those who already entered into no-cash
settlements and those who have not yet entered into any
settlements) should now be entitled to enter into cash
settlements. With regard to this argument, we note that movants
have failed to present any credible testimony from the TMP's of
the partnerships, from other partners, from their representatives,
or others to support their claim that respondent failed to give
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