- 10 -
See id. No party, including petitioners, contested entry of the
decision in the underlying partnership proceeding, nor did any
party appeal the decision. The Hamilton decision cannot be
vacated in the context of this action.
Lastly, this Court has recently considered facts and issues
substantially identical to those that petitioner has raised. See
Davenport Recycling Associates v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1998-
347, pending on appeal before the Court of Appeals for the
Seventh Circuit. In Davenport Recycling, we denied a motion to
vacate the final decision in a partnership proceeding in which
Sam Winer was petitioner.
Consistent with the preceding discussion, we hold that our
jurisdiction in this case is limited to redetermining
petitioners' liability for the additions to tax set forth in the
affected items notice of deficiency and that we lack jurisdiction
to consider petitioners' liability for the deficiencies that were
assessed by computational adjustment, petitioners' liability for
interest computed at the increased rate prescribed by section
6621(c), and petitioners' claims that the underlying partnership
proceeding is invalid. For the foregoing reasons, respondent's
motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction and to strike the
claims relating to the deficiency attributable to partnership
items is granted.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011