- 22 -- 22 -
In Maxwell v. Commissioner, supra, we struck affected items
from the petition for lack of jurisdiction to determine those
items. We made specific reference to section 6229(a) as
extending the period of limitations for assessing tax
attributable to affected items. See id. at 791 n.6, 793. In
addition, after stating that resolution of the affected items
"must await the outcome of the partnership proceeding", we
observed: "Apparently, in these circumstances respondent may
issue a second notice of deficiency to the partner determining an
additional deficiency attributable to ‘affected items.’" Id. at
792. We also noted that the Commissioner and the tax matters
partner had agreed to extend the section 6229(a) period for
assessing any tax attributable to any partnership item or
affected item. See sec. 6229(b); Maxwell v. Commissioner, supra
at 786. Thus, in Maxwell, we recognized that the Commissioner
suffered no serious disadvantage on account of our striking the
affected items from the petition. If the Commissioner had issued
the FPAA before the extended section 6229 period expired, that
period would have been suspended as provided for in section
6229(d). Moreover, the Commissioner was not prevented from
issuing another notice of deficiency. See sec. 6230(a)(2)(C).
If, as I have concluded, the FPAA issued in Rhone-Poulenc
did not suspend the section 6501(e)(1)(A) limitations period
(assuming it is ultimately found to be applicable in this case),
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