- 4 -
In a unified partnership proceeding, pursuant to sections
6221 through 6231, partnership items are treated separately from
a partner’s deficiency proceedings involving nonpartnership
items. Generally, respondent is required to give partners notice
of the beginning of a partnership proceeding and the FPAA
resulting from such proceeding. See sec. 6223(a). Respondent
was not, however, required to provide such notice to Mr.
Overstreet because he had less than a 1-percent interest in the
profits of Finley, Kumble, a partnership with more than 100
partners. See sec. 6223(b). Further, the TMP’s failure to
notify Mr. Overstreet of the partnership proceeding does not
affect the applicability of the partnership proceeding or the
FPAA to Mr. Overstreet. See sec. 6230(f).
This Court does not have jurisdiction to determine
partnership items in a partner level proceeding. See secs. 6221,
6226; Brookes v. Commissioner, 108 T.C. 1, 6 (1997). The
expiration of the period of limitations for issuance of the FPAA
is an affirmative defense that must be raised in a partnership
level proceeding. See Crowell v. Commissioner, 102 T.C. 683, 693
(1994); Genesis Oil & Gas Ltd. v. Commissioner, 93 T.C. 562, 565
(1989).
Petitioners, citing Barbados #7 Ltd. v. Commissioner, 92
T.C. 804 (1989), as authority, contend that they are,
nonetheless, entitled to contest the timeliness of the FPAA
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011