- 3 -
that all references to claims for refund of overpayments to
shareholders of the partnership be stricken.
Petitioner filed an objection to respondent’s motion arguing
that the motion should be denied on the grounds that respondent’s
motion was not timely filed and that the Tax Court has
jurisdiction to determine the amount of any deficiency and to
determine the amount of any overpayment in a TEFRA partnership
proceeding under sections 6512(b)(1) and 6226(f).
This matter was called for hearing in Atlanta, Georgia.
Counsel for both parties appeared at the hearing and presented
oral argument with respect to the pending motion.
The Tax Court is a court of limited jurisdiction, and we may
exercise our jurisdiction only to the extent authorized by
Congress. Naftel v. Commissioner, 85 T.C. 527, 529 (1985). The
Court’s jurisdiction may be challenged by either party, or by the
Court sua sponte, at any stage of the proceedings. Smith v.
Commissioner, 96 T.C. 10, 13-14 (1991), and cases cited therein.
Consistent with this principle, we reject petitioner’s assertion
that respondent’s motion to dismiss and to strike should be
denied on the ground that it was not timely filed.
The Court’s jurisdiction to review adjustments to a
partnership return is governed by the unified partnership audit
and litigation procedures set forth in sections 6221 through
6233. Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982 (TEFRA),
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011