- 16 -
therefore, at the initiation of a criminal tax investigation, the
partner's items become nonpartnership items pursuant to section
6231(c)(2), and the partner is removed as TMP pursuant to section
301.6231(a)(7)-1(l)(1)(iv), Proced. & Admin. Regs.
In sum, petitioners conclude that once a partner is removed
as TMP upon the initiation of a criminal tax investigation, the
partner so removed cannot serve as TMP as long as he remains the
subject of a criminal tax investigation and that any previous
designation of that partner as TMP will cease. Petitioners,
however, concede that a partner subject to a criminal tax
investigation could serve as TMP upon completion of that
investigation but would probably have to be redesignated TMP.
On the basis of the above argument, petitioners argue that
Mr. Hoyt could not have served as TMP after the initial criminal
tax investigation which began on April 24, 1984.
In addressing petitioners’ argument, we turn first to the
interpretation of the language of section 6231(c).
When interpreting statutes, the function of courts is to
construe the language of the statute to give effect to the intent
of Congress. See Cramer v. Commissioner, 101 T.C. 225, 247
(1993), affd. 64 F.3d 1406 (9th Cir. 1995). Where possible,
statutes should be interpreted in their ordinary everyday sense.
See Crane v. Commissioner, 331 U.S. 1, 6 (1947). A statute is to
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