Hoyt and Sons Ranch Properties Ltd. NV - Page 7




                                        - 7 -                                         

          apply with respect to all taxable years of a partnership                    
          beginning after September 3, 1982.  Sparks v. Commissioner, 87              
          T.C. 1279, 1284 (1986).  The TEFRA procedures apply to the                  
          taxable year 1994 of Ranch Properties.                                      
               This Court has previously held that the standard for                   
          determining the validity of an FPAA is whether the FPAA provides            
          adequate or minimal notice to the taxpayer of the Commissioner’s            
          final determination of adjustments to the partnership return.               
          Triangle Investors Ltd. Pship. v. Commissioner, 95 T.C. 610, 613            
          (1990); Chomp Associates v. Commissioner, 91 T.C. 1069, 1073-1074           
          (1988); Byrd Inv. v. Commissioner, 89 T.C. 1, 6-7 (1987), affd.             
          without published opinion 853 F.2d 928 (11th Cir. 1988).                    
          Furthermore, the validity of an FPAA is not contingent upon                 
          actual receipt by the TMP or a notice partner.  Crowell v.                  
          Commissioner, 102 T.C. 683, 692 (1994); see also Seneca Ltd. v.             
          Comissioner, 92 T.C. 363, 368 (1989), affd. without published               
          opinion 899 F.2d 1225 (9th Cir. 1990).                                      
               In the motion to dismiss, respondent contends that the Court           
          does not have jurisdiction to redetermine any items in the FPAA             
          because the petition was not filed within the period specified in           
          section 6226(a) or (b), and on the grounds that SGE is not a                
          notice partner.                                                             
               SGE argues that the Cobb letter, combined with the                     
          authorization by Mr. Hoyt, serves as the notice group request               





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011