- 6 -
Our jurisdiction over the issues decided in ASA Investerings
Pship. v. Commissioner, supra, was predicated on the issuance of
a notice of a final partnership administrative adjustment (FPAA)
and a petition for a readjustment of partnership items.5 See
sec. 6226(a). Our decision was based on an application of the
unified partnership procedures.6
Petitioner contends that “there are a number of ‘affected
items which require partner level determinations’ (Code, Section
6230(a)(2)(A)(i)) with respect to which tax and, necessarily,
interest must have been assessed as a result of this Court’s
decision in this matter.” Petitioner points to AlliedSignal’s
basis in ASA Investerings Partnership and the determination of an
appropriate amount of interest expense under section 1.861-8,
Income Tax Regs., as affected items that require partner-level
determination under section 6230(a)(2)(A)(i). Petitioner claims
that “The assessment(s) with respect to these ‘affected items,’
pursuant to the provisions of Code, Section 6230(a)(2)(A)(i) of
5In ASA Investerings Pship. v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo.
1998-305, affd. 201 F.3d 505 (D.C. Cir. 2000), we held that ASA
Investerings Partnership was not a valid partnership for tax
purposes, and we sustained respondent’s reallocation of
partnership items from a foreign entity to AlliedSignal, Inc.,
the tax matters partner in these proceedings.
6The unified partnership procedures have been amended since
their effective date of Sept. 3, 1982, and those procedures are
now contained in secs. 6221 through 6234.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011