GAF Corporation and Subsidiaries - Page 18




                                        - 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  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011