- 6 -
Mr. Hoyt had authority that he could release or delegate to Mr.
Cobb.
As previously stated, respondent’s pending motion to dismiss
for lack of jurisdiction is based on the grounds that the
petition for readjustment was not filed within either of the time
periods prescribed by section 6226(a) and (b), and that SGE was
not a notice partner, and thus was not entitled to file the
readjustment petition. Petitioner, in its objection to
respondent’s motion to dismiss, contends: (1) It is a notice
partner to which the FPAA should have been provided; (2) the FPAA
notice mailed to the TMP at the Orovada address was never
received, and, therefore, invalid; and (3) the period for filing
SGE’s readjustment petition should be equitably tolled due to
respondent’s failure to provide proper notice. The premise of
SGE’s third argument is that respondent’s failure to provide the
FPAA notice in this case to SGE’s counsel, Mr. Cobb, per the Cobb
letter, invalidates the FPAA.
Discussion
The tax treatment of partnership items generally is
determined at the partnership level pursuant to the unified audit
and litigation procedures set forth in sections 6221 through
6233. Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982 (TEFRA),
Pub. L. 97-248, sec. 402(a), 96 Stat. 648; Maxwell v.
Commissioner, 87 T.C. 783, 788 (1986). The TEFRA procedures
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011