- 13 -
stated in Vulcan Oil Tech. Partners v. Commissioner, 110 T.C.
153, 160 (1998), affd. without published opinion sub nom. Tucek
v. Commissioner, 198 F.3d 259 (10th Cir. 1999), affd. per curiam
without published opinion sub nom. Drake Oil Tech. Partners v.
Commissioner, 211 F.3d 1277 (10th Cir. 2000):
At the time the * * * settlements involved * * *
were entered into, there was no statutory or regulatory
provision that placed on respondent the duty to notify
each partner in a TEFRA partnership that a settlement
was entered into. Rather, section 6223(g) and section
301.6223(g)-1T(b)(1)(iv), Temporary Proced. & Admin.
Regs., 52 Fed. Reg. 6786 (Mar. 5, 1987), placed the
duty on the TMP to keep each partner informed about
settlement offers that had been entered into by
partners. It was the TMP, not respondent, who had the
duty of notification to other investor-partners of the
fact and date that settlements were entered into.
Section 6230(f) provides that a TMP’s failure to notify a
partner or to perform any act on behalf of any partner, as
required by either the statute or the regulations, does not
affect the applicability of any partnership proceeding or
adjustment to that partner. “Thus, despite the TMP’s alleged
failure to provide notice to movants of cash settlements * * *,
movants herein have no right now to require respondent to enter
into cash settlements.” Vulcan Oil Tech. Partners v.
Commissioner, supra at 161.
We hold that, under the circumstances of these cases,
respondent is not obligated to extend to petitioners an offer of
settlement consistent with the terms of settlement agreements
made with other Jojoba partners. See secs. 6223(g), 6224(c)(2);
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