- 15 -
partnership items, they might be precluded by the doctrine of res
judicata from bringing a subsequent suit for the overpayments.
We held that this possible hardship was irrelevant to whether we
had jurisdiction and granted the Commissioner’s motion to dismiss
regarding the taxpayers’ claimed losses from the partnership.
Finally, in Gillilan v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1993-366,
we once again explained that in a deficiency case, we lack
jurisdiction over partnership and affected items where the notice
of deficiency was issued prior to completion of the related
partnership proceeding. In Gillilan, the taxpayer was a partner
in a partnership governed by the TEFRA procedures. The
Commissioner issued an FPAA to the partnership, the tax matters
partner filed a petition, and thereafter, the Commissioner issued
a notice of deficiency to petitioner for tax that was dependent
upon resolution of partnership items. At the time the notice of
deficiency was issued, the partnership case was pending before
this Court. We addressed our jurisdiction in the deficiency case
stating:
The unified audit and litigation procedures applicable
to partnership items are found in sections 6221-6233.
Those procedures (the TEFRA procedures) were enacted as
part of the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of
1982 (TEFRA), Pub. L. 97-248, sec. 401(a), 96 Stat.
648. The TEFRA procedures provide a method for
adjusting “partnership items” in a single, unified
partnership proceeding, rather than in separate
proceedings with each partner. Sec. 6621. Until such
partnership-level proceeding is completed, respondent
generally may not assess a deficiency attributable to a
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011