- 45 -
They are: (1) The 3-year minimum period, which ended 3 years
after the partnership return was filed, (2) the 6-year period,
which ended 6 years after petitioner’s return was filed, and
(3) the period that ended on the later to end of the 3-year
minimum period and the 6-year period (the later-to-end period).
The majority holds that the period specified in subsection (a) is
the later-to-end period. I believe that it is the 3-year minimum
period. That dispute would be academic, however, given the facts
of this case, if the majority would adopt my analysis in the
companion case, GAF Corp. & Subs. v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. __
(2000), and overrule Maxwell v. Commissioner, 87 T.C. 783 (1986),
and the cases that have followed it, to the extent that they hold
that we lack subject matter jurisdiction to redetermine a
deficiency in tax attributable to affected items until the
related partnership proceeding (if any) is completed. If the
majority were to do so, then it would be compelled to hold that
the notice of deficiency issued in GAF Corp., not the FPAA, was
valid to suspend the 6-year period, petitioner’s motion for
summary judgment could still be denied, and this case could still
proceed to determine whether, in fact, there was a 6-year period
applicable under section 6501(e)(1)(A) and, if so, whether
respondent’s proposed adjustments should be sustained on the
merits.
Page: Previous 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011