- 10 -
5. Maxwell Line of Cases
Since the parties agree that the primary questions are items
that are not before us in this proceeding, we will not concern
ourselves with our jurisdiction to determine those items. We
consider only our jurisdiction to determine the affected items.
As noted above, petitioner relies upon N.C.F. Energy
Partners v. Commissioner, 89 T.C. 741 (1987), Maxwell v.
Commissioner, 87 T.C. 783 (1986), and Gillilan v. Commissioner,
T.C. Memo. 1993-366, to support its argument that we have no
jurisdiction over the affected items.
In Maxwell, we were confronted with a notice of deficiency
that was based on adjustments, some of which were unrelated to a
partnership and some of which were “affected items” within the
meaning of section 6231(a)(5). We granted respondent’s motion to
dismiss the affected items for lack of jurisdiction. Our
dismissal was based on an analysis of the statutory scheme for
dealing with TEFRA partnerships. That statutory scheme
contemplated full resolution of partnership items, at the
partnership-level proceeding, before there could be any partner-
level action, such as a notice of deficiency, based on affected
items. Maxwell did not explicitly state that the notice of
deficiency was invalid as to the affected items, but that appears
to be the only logical conclusion. For example, if the notice
had been valid as to affected items and the petition had been
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