Rhone Poulenc Surfactants and Specialties, L.P. - Page 43




                                        - 43 -                                        
               HALPERN, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part:                
          I.  Introduction                                                            
               I agree with the majority’s analysis of the relationship               
          between sections 6229(a) and 6501 and its conclusions that                  
          (1) section 6229 and section 6501 provide alternative periods for           
          the assessment of any tax attributable to partnership items and             
          affected items and (2) section 6229(a) provides a 3-year minimum            
          period (the 3-year minimum period) for such assessments.  I also            
          agree with the majority that the question of whether there was              
          adequate disclosure of any omitted income, which would negate the           
          application of the 6-year limitations period provided by section            
          6501(e)(1)(A) (the 6-year period), raises genuine issues of                 
          material fact, making summary judgment improper.  I do not agree            
          with the majority that respondent’s issuance of a notice of final           
          partnership administrative adjustment (FPAA) on September 12,               
          1997, 3 days prior to the expiration of the 6-year period                   
          (assuming that it does, in fact, apply in this case) suspended              
          the running of such limitations period pursuant to section                  
          6229(d).  I concur, however, with the result reached by the                 
          majority (that the running of the 6-year period was suspended on            
          September 12, 1997) because of the concurrent issuance of a                 
          notice of deficiency under section 6212(a).1                                


               1Without qualification, Judges Parr and Foley dissent from             
          the majority’s opinion.  They do not distinguish between the                
                                                              (continued...)          





Page:  Previous  33  34  35  36  37  38  39  40  41  42  43  44  45  46  47  48  49  50  51  52  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011