- 13 -
dependent on partnership items that had not yet been resolved
under the TEFRA partnership procedures. In doing so, we
explained:
In general, respondent has no authority to assess a
deficiency attributable to a partnership item until
after the close of a partnership proceeding. Sec.
6225(a). Moreover, since the tax treatment of affected
items depends on partnership level determinations,
affected items cannot be tried as part of a partner’s
personal tax case until the completion of the
partnership level proceeding. N.C.F. Energy Partners
v. Commissioner, 89 T.C. 741, 743-744 (1987); Maxwell
v. Commissioner, supra at 790-793; see sec. 6230(a).
This, of course, is a partner level, not a partnership
level, proceeding. [Id. at 328.]
In Dubin, we lacked jurisdiction because the deficiency notice
was invalid as to P, since it was issued prior to the completion
of partnership-level proceedings.9
Respondent argues that we have jurisdiction in the instant
case and that it is distinguishable from Maxwell v. Commissioner,
supra, because here the FPAA has already been issued. In Trost
v. Commissioner, 95 T.C. 560, 564-565 (1990), we rejected a
similar argument when it was made by taxpayers, and opposed by
the Commissioner, stating:
Based on the statutory pattern and legislative
history of the TEFRA provisions, we concluded that “The
‘partnership items’ must be separated from the
partner’s personal case and considered solely in the
9In the headnote, we stated: “Held, further, R’s deficiency
notice is invalid as to P, because it was issued prior to the
completion of the partnership-level proceedings. Sec. 6225,
I.R.C.”
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011