- 2 -
The sole issue for determination is whether respondent issued the
notice of deficiency within the limitations period.
Background
The parties submitted this case fully stipulated pursuant to
Rule 122. When the petition was filed, petitioners resided in
Los Angeles, California.
In 1987, Mr. Overstreet’s law partnership, Finley, Kumble,
Wagner, Heine, Underberg, Manley, Myerson and Casey (Finley,
Kumble), ceased operation and dissolved. On February 24, 1988,
several of Finley, Kumble’s creditor banks filed an involuntary
bankruptcy petition on behalf of Finley, Kumble, pursuant to
chapter 7 of the Bankruptcy Code, which the bankruptcy court, on
March 4, 1988, converted to a chapter 11 bankruptcy proceeding.
In 1992, some of Finley, Kumble’s debts were discharged in the
bankruptcy proceeding.
Finley, Kumble’s original 1992 Form 1065, U.S. Partnership
Return of Income, filed on September 21, 1993, identified 280
general partners, including Mr. Overstreet and Marshall Manley.
Mr. Manley had the largest profit interest of any partner (i.e.,
5.6075 percent). Mr. Overstreet’s profit interest was O.1680
percent.
On September 15, 1994, respondent began an examination of
Finley, Kumble’s 1992 partnership return. Because Finley, Kumble
did not designate a tax matters partner (TMP), respondent
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011