- 16 -
of announcing the fact and dismissing the cause.” Steel Co. v.
Citizens for a Better Envt., 523 U.S. 83, 94 (1998). We cannot
avoid the jurisdictional issue by assuming hypothetical
jurisdiction and disposing of the case on the merits. Id.
In support of his jurisdictional argument, respondent points
out that section 6221 requires “partnership items” to be
determined at the partnership level. Under section 6231(a)(3),
“partnership items” are those items that, by regulation, are more
appropriately determined at the partnership level than at the
partner level. The regulations contain a nonexclusive list of
items more appropriately determined at the partnership level.
Sec. 301.6231(a)(3)-1(a)(1), Proced. & Admin. Regs. The list
includes the amount of, and each partner’s distributive share of,
partnership items of income, gain, loss, deduction, or credit,
id., and any contributions, distributions, or transactions
subject to section 707(a) that are necessary to determine the
amount, character, or percentage interest of a partner in the
partnership, sec. 301.6231(a)(3)-1(a)(4), Proced. & Admin. Regs.
In order to determine each partner’s distributive share of
partnership items, it is necessary to know who are the partners
and what share of partnership items each partner is entitled to
and required to take into account. Therefore, to the extent that
the taxpayer’s claim that he was not a partner would affect the
distributive shares of the other partners, the taxpayer’s claim
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011