Gary F. and Helen Overstreet - Page 5

                                        - 5 -                                         
          because the extension of time to issue it was granted by an                 
          ineligible TMP.  We disagree.  While the Court in Barbados #7               
          Ltd. determined that the FPAA was invalid because the extension             
          of time for issuance was signed by an ineligible TMP, Barbados #7           
          Ltd. was a partnership, rather than partner level, proceeding.              
               Petitioners also contend that, even if Mr. Manley properly             
          extended the period of limitations for issuance of the FPAA, the            
          notice of deficiency was not mailed to them in a timely manner.             
          Section 6229(d) tolls the period of limitations, extending the              
          time for respondent to issue the notice of deficiency until 1               
          year and 150 days after the issuance of the FPAA.  The                      
          limitations period therefore expired on January 7, 2000.                    
          Petitioners contend that the postmark on respondent’s certified             
          mail list shows that the notice of deficiency was not sent until            
          January 8, 2000.  This contention is meritless.  The parties                
          stipulated that the notice of deficiency was sent January 6,                
          2000.  Petitioners did not dispute respondent’s determination               
          that petitioners owed tax relating to their share of the                    
          partnership cancellation of indebtedness income.  Accordingly,              
          respondent’s determination is sustained.                                    
               Contentions we have not addressed are moot, irrelevant, or             

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011