- 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
meritless.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011