- 18 -
the same partnership items. Absent a specific agreement or
stipulation to the contrary, the consistent settlement rules of
section 6224(c)(2) do not apply to an entire tax shelter project,
nor to partnerships within a group of related partnerships (such
as the Denver-based Elektra Hemisphere tax shelter partnerships).
What we said in Boyd v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1992-626, in
this regard is pertinent --
Even if TEFRA were to apply, the settlement
agreement for * * * [partnership A] would not be imposed
on petitioner or any other partner in * * *
[partnership B] because * * * [partnership B] is a
separate partnership from * * * [partnership A].
Petitioner was not a partner in * * * [partnership A] or
any of the six other partnerships for which settlement
agreements were reached. There is no provision in the
Code requiring * * * [respondent] to settle the * * * [B
partnership] under the same settlement terms that were
negotiated for the * * * [A partnership], a separate and
distinct partnership. [Citation omitted.]
Lastly, we address briefly movants' allegations that fraud,
malfeasance, and misrepresentations of fact occurred that provide
a basis for setting aside the no-cash settlements that the
majority of the movants herein entered into with respondent with
respect to their investments in the Elektra Hemisphere tax
shelters.
Movants cite DuFresne v. Commissioner, 26 F.3d 105 (9th Cir.
1994), vacating and remanding T.C. Memo. 1991-614, in which the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit vacated a decision in
a test case and remanded the case for further proceedings based on
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