- 24 -- 24 -
the partnership-level proceeding had not as yet been completed.
In my view, the approach taken by the Court in those cases
represented no more than a rational and convenient method of
separating and ordering the partnership and partner-level
proceedings. It was not mandated, however, by the absence of a
final decision on the merits in the partnership proceeding.
Nothing in the statute predicates our jurisdiction to redetermine
deficiencies attributable to affected items requiring partner-
level determinations on such finality. See supra sec. III.A.
Indeed, we have easily found within our jurisdiction the
redetermination of deficiencies attributable to affected items
requiring partner-level determinations that were independent of a
partnership-level proceeding. See Jenkins v. Commissioner, 102
T.C. 550 (1994); Roberts v. Commissioner, 94 T.C. 853 (1990).
The notice of deficiency is valid, and we have no grounds to
dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. In a Maxwell type of case, I
would simply postpone consideration of the affected items until
it was appropriate to consider them.4
4 The circumstances of this case are analogous to those in
which our jurisdiction over a tax controversy is stayed by the
taxpayer filing a petition in bankruptcy. Until the close of the
bankruptcy case, or earlier lifting of the stay, we suspend (and
do not terminate) our consideration of the case. See 11 U.S.C.
sec. 362 (1994); Freytag v. Commissioner, 110 T.C. 35, 39 (1998).
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