- 12 -
2. Petitioners' Position
Petitioners contend that Mr. Hoyt’s extensions of the period
of limitations are invalid because at the time he executed the
appropriate Forms 872 he no longer was the TMP of the Hoyt
partnerships because he had been the subject of a criminal tax
investigation. Therefore, they contend that since the extension
agreements were invalidly executed, the periods of limitations
for the years in issue expired before the FPAA's were issued.
Petitioners base their contentions on three alternative
arguments: (1) That the second and third sentences of section
301.6231(c)-5T, Temporary Proced. & Admin. Regs., supra, are
invalid and that the initiation of a criminal tax investigation
of Mr. Hoyt converted his partnership items in the Hoyt
partnerships into nonpartnership items as a matter of law; (2)
that the criminal tax investigation of Mr. Hoyt created a
conflict of interest between Mr. Hoyt's duties as a fiduciary of
the Hoyt partnerships and his self-interest as the subject of a
criminal tax investigation and that such a conflict necessitated
his removal as TMP on the basis of the rationale of Transpac
Drilling Venture 1982-12 v. Commissioner, 147 F.3d 221 (2d Cir.
1998), revg. and remanding Transpac Drilling Venture 1982-16 v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1994-26; or (3) that the Commissioner
abused his discretion by not issuing a written notice informing
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011