- 17 -
acknowledge that some of our opinions contain dicta to the
contrary. See, for example, Boyd v. Commissioner, 101 TC. 365,
370 (1993), indicating that section 6501(a) does not apply to
income tax attributable to partnership items. As previously
indicated, the statements referred to in the aforementioned cases
are dicta since those cases did not involve the issue before us.
c. Field Service Advice Memoranda; Internal Revenue
Manual
Petitioner relies on two Internal Revenue Service field
service advice memoranda (the FSA’s) in arguing that respondent
has accepted petitioner’s position. Even if the FSA’s supported
petitioner’s claim, the FSA’s have no precedential status. See
sec. 6110(k)(3) (formerly (j)(3)). Both FSA’s, however, express
respondent's position. One FSA advised the District Counsel,
Illinois District, that petitioner’s position was initially
adopted only because it was considered the more conservative
position (i.e., there would never be a statute of limitations
problem as long as the assessments were always made within the 3-
year period), but that in the future it would not be advanced.
The second FSA advised an undisclosed district counsel to adopt
petitioner’s position only because it was questionable whether
the taxpayer's individual section 6501 period remained open.
Petitioner also quotes from the Internal Revenue Manual
(IRM) in support of its position. Whatever force as authority
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011