- 18 -
HALPERN, J., dissenting:
I. Introduction
This case is a companion to Rhone-Poulenc Surfactants &
Specialties, L.P. v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. __ (2000) (Rhone-
Poulenc). In Rhone-Poulenc, I agree with the majority that
section 6229(a) provides a minimum period for the assessment of
any tax attributable to any partnership item or affected item and
not the exclusive period for the assessment of such tax, but I
disagree with the majority that the notice of final partnership
administrative adjustment (FPAA) issued in that case was timely
under section 6229(a) to suspend “the period for assessing any
tax imposed by subtitle A”. I concur in the result reached by
the majority, however, because the taxpayer in Rhone-Poulenc has
failed to show that the notice of deficiency issued to petitioner
in this case (the notice of deficiency) was not timely issued
under section 6503(a)(1) to suspend the running of the period of
limitations provided in section 6501 for the assessment of a
deficiency attributable to affected items requiring partner-level
determinations (arguably 6 years, under the facts of this case
and section 6501(e)(1)).
My disagreement with the majority in this case is over
whether the notice of deficiency (dealing only with affected
items) is invalid because it was issued prior to the completion
of the related partnership proceeding. I respectfully dissent
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