- 3 -
distributive share of partnership gross income from the 1st-tier
partnership’s tax return.2
Respondent determined deficiencies in individual income tax
and additions to tax under sections 6653(a) (negligence, etc.)
and 6661 (substantial understatement) against (1) petitioners
Ridge L. Harlan (hereinafter sometimes referred to as Ridge) and
Marjory C. Harlan (hereinafter sometimes referred to as Marjory)
(Ridge and Marjory are hereinafter sometimes referred to
collectively as the Harlans) and (2) petitioners Theodore S.
Ockels (hereinafter sometimes referred to as Theodore) and
Rosemarie G. Ockels (Theodore and Rosemarie G. Ockels are
hereinafter sometimes referred to collectively as the Ockels) for
1985 as follows:
2On brief, petitioners state that this is a jurisdictional
issue. However, the instant cases are deficiency cases; thus,
the statute of limitations is an affirmative defense and not a
jurisdictional issue. See sec. 7459(e); Rule 39; Davenport
Recycling Associates v. Commissioner, 220 F.3d 1255, 1259-1260
(11th Cir. 2000), affg. T.C. Memo. 1998-347 (in deficiency cases,
assertion of the bar of the statute of limitations is an
affirmative defense, not a jurisdictional question); Columbia
Building, Ltd. v. Commissioner, 98 T.C. 607, 611 (1992) (same);
compare Commissioner v. Lundy, 516 U.S. 235 (1996) (in refund
cases in the Tax Court, the statute of limitations is a
jurisdictional question).
Unless otherwise indicated, all Rule references are to the
Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011