- 15 -
proper notice of settlements to the TMP's under this manual
provision and that the TMP's and other partners did not timely
know of cash settlements that were available during 1986, 1987,
and 1988.
Also, failure of respondent to comply with the above manual
provision would provide little support for granting movants’
motions herein. See United States v. Caceres, 440 U.S. 741
(1979); Keado v. United States, 853 F.2d 1209 (5th Cir. 1988);
Lojeski v. Boandl, 788 F.2d 196 (3d Cir. 1986); and United States
v. Horne, 714 F.2d 206 (1st Cir. 1983), which provide that
irregularities in following manual provisions not involving
constitutional rights generally will not give rise to legal
remedies.
Further, section 6230(f) expressly provides that the failure
of the TMP to provide notice or to perform any act on behalf of
any partner, as required by either the statute or the regulations,
would not affect the applicability of any partnership proceeding
or adjustment to such partner. Thus, despite the TMP's alleged
failure to provide notice to movants of cash settlements that were
entered into in 1986 through 1988, movants herein have no right
now to require respondent to enter into cash settlements.
Under no statutory or regulatory provision, Court rule, or
other basis, was respondent required to give movants herein notice
of cash settlements that, during 1986 through 1988, were entered
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