- 7 -
In a letter dated October 9, 1999, from James Elliott, Chief
of Appeals, to Congressman Packard, Mr. Elliott states:
Our records show that * * * [petitioners] were mailed a
certified notice of the partnership audit on July 14, 1986.
* * * [Petitioners] were also mailed certified notices of
final partnership adjustments on April 9, 1990. These
notices were mailed to them at 24672 Jeremian Drive, Dana
Point, California. (We realize that the address on the 1986
and 1990 letters [varies] slightly from * * * [petitioners’]
address at 24672 Jeremiah.)
He furthers states that the other partners were also issued
notices, that the tax matters partner filed a petition with the
Tax Court, and that “On June 29, 1990, our office also sent a
letter to the taxpayers offering a settlement of the government
conceding the penalties if the taxpayer conceded the tax. In
TEFRA cases, the tax matters partner has the responsibility to
keep all partners informed of the progress of the case.”
The record does not reflect when respondent was advised of
petitioners’ Jeremiah Drive address nor, except for petitioner’s
self-serving testimony, whether the FPAA was returned to
respondent as undeliverable.
Once partnership level proceedings are completed, the
Commissioner is permitted to assess a computational adjustment
against a partner without issuing a deficiency notice. See sec.
6230(a)(1); N.C.F. Energy Partners v. Commissioner, 89 T.C. 741,
744 (1987). This must have occurred sometime between the date
the opinion for Utah Jojoba I Research v. Commissioner, supra,
was filed (January 5, 1998) and the date the instant notice of
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011