Agri-Cal Venture Associates, Frederick H. Behrens, Tax Matters Partner, et al. - Page 31




                                       - 31 -                                         
          L. Schreiber, a general partner in the partnership, as the TMP of           
          the partnership for 1985 and shows his address as “5000 Birch               
          Street, Suite 610, Newport Beach, California 92660".  The 1985              
          AVA Form 1065 shows the partnership’s address as care of AMCOR,             
          “5000 BIRCH ST., STE 610, EAST TOWER, NEWPORT BEACH CA 92660".              
          AVA has failed to show that the partnership’s address was any               
          different on September 30, 1988, or that correspondence addressed           
          to it care of George L. Schreiber, who also signed the                      
          September 30 letter as vice president of AMCOR, would not have              
          reached the partnership.  We find that the partnership was                  
          identified by address in the September 30 letter.  Moreover, the            
          September 30 letter was prepared by Deborah Gaither, a revenue              
          agent employed by respondent who was examining various AMCOR-               
          sponsored partnerships.  The circumstances surrounding her                  
          preparation of that letter and its signature by Messrs. Behrens             
          and Schreiber convince us that there could have been no confusion           
          as to what partnerships were the subject of that letter and that            
          any technical inadequacy in that regard is immaterial.                      
               The first sentence of section 301.6231(a)(7)-1T(e),                    
          Temporary Proced. & Admin. Regs., supra, specifies that the                 
          statement designating a TMP be filed with the service center with           
          which the partnership return was filed.  AVA argues that its                
          failure to file the September 30 letter with the service center             
          is fatal to its validity.  Respondent argues that, since the                






Page:  Previous  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  30  31  32  33  34  35  36  37  38  39  40  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011