- 16 -
“partnership item” against any partner. Sec. 6225.
Moreover, because the tax treatment of an “affected
item” depends upon the partnership-level determination,
affected items generally cannot be tried as part of a
partner’s tax case prior to the completion of the
partnership-level proceeding. E.g., Dubin v.
Commissioner 99 T.C. 325, 328 (1992). Accordingly, if
the items at issue in this case are partnership items
(or affected items), respondent lacks the authority to
assess a deficiency with regard thereto. If that is
the case, we must dismiss for lack of jurisdiction on
the ground that respondent’s deficiency notice is
invalid. * * * [Id.; fn. ref. omitted; emphasis added.]
In Gillilan, we dismissed the deficiency case for lack of
jurisdiction on the basis that the notice of deficiency was
issued prior to completion of the partnership-level proceedings,
which rendered the notice “invalid”.11
The theory and holdings in the aforementioned cases apply to
the instant case, and no meaningful distinction can be made. The
11In Gillilan v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1993-366, we held:
Petitioner’s share of Startrac’s losses is a
partnership item. Accordingly, respondent may not
assess a deficiency attributable to such losses against
petitioner prior to the completion of Startrac’s
partnership-level proceedings. Sec. 6225. That has
not yet occurred, and respondent’s notice of deficiency
therefore is invalid. We shall dismiss for lack of
jurisdiction.
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011