- 3 -
of partnership and affected items. Respondent argues that we
lack jurisdiction to question Finley Kumble’s decision to treat
Mr. Blonien as a partner, and that Mr. Blonien was a partner.
We hold that we have no jurisdiction in this proceeding to
consider Mr. Blonien’s argument that he was not a partner in
Finley Kumble. To the extent the determination would affect the
allocation of partnership items among the other partners, the
determination of who is a partner is a partnership item that must
be challenged at the partnership level. Therefore, assessment of
the deficiency against petitioners for 1992 arising out of Mr.
Blonien’s share of Finley Kumble’s items is not barred by the
applicable statute of limitations.
We have jurisdiction in this deficiency proceeding to
adjudicate the effect of Mr. Blonien’s share of partnership items
(determined at the partnership level) on petitioners’ tax
liability. The deficiency will be determined in accordance with
Rule 155.
FINDINGS OF FACT
The parties have stipulated some of the facts. The
stipulation of facts and the attached exhibits are incorporated
herein by this reference. Petitioners lived in Elk Grove,
California, when they filed their petition in this case.
Mr. Blonien is an attorney who has been admitted to practice
law in California since 1972.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011