Rodney J. and Noreen E. Blonien - Page 17




                                       - 17 -                                         
          is a partnership item.6  We have no jurisdiction to consider                
          partnership items in a partner-level deficiency proceeding.  GAF            
          Corp. v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 519 (2000); Maxwell v.                      
          Commissioner, 87 T.C. 783 (1986).  Therefore, we are bound by the           
          determination made at the partnership level that Mr. Blonien was            
          a partner in Finley Kumble.                                                 
          Petitioners Have Not Been Deprived of Due Process                           
               Petitioners argue that treating their allegation that Mr.              
          Blonien was not a partner as a “partnership item”, over which we            
          have no jurisdiction in this partner-level deficiency proceeding,           

               6We recognize that the determination of who is a partner can           
          be a partner-level item where resolution of the issue would not             
          affect the allocation of partnership items to the other partners.           
          In Katz v. Commissioner, 116 T.C. 5 (2001), we held that                    
          allocation of a partnership distributive share between a partner            
          and the partner’s bankruptcy estate was properly a partner-level            
          item because the outcome of the dispute did not affect the                  
          allocation of partnership items among the other partners.                   
          Similarly, in Hang v. Commissioner, 95 T.C. 74 (1990), we held              
          that the determination whether a father was equitable owner of S            
          corporation shares held in the name of his sons is properly made            
          at the individual shareholder level rather than at the corporate            
          level in a TEFRA proceeding because the determination would not             
          affect the distributive shares of the other shareholders.                   
               In the case at hand, if petitioners were successful in                 
          arguing that Mr. Blonien was not a partner in Finley Kumble, then           
          the share of Finley Kumble’s COD income wrongly allocated to Mr.            
          Blonien would have to be reallocated among the other partners.              
          Because the Finley Kumble partnership-level proceeding is                   
          completed, there may be no way to make the reallocations.                   
          Therefore, unlike the situation in Hang and Katz where resolution           
          of the dispute would not affect the original partnership                    
          allocations, resolution of the dispute could affect the                     
          partnership allocations to the other partners.  Therefore, the              
          determination of whether Mr. Blonien was a partner in Finley                
          Kumble is more appropriately determined at the partnership level.           





Page:  Previous  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011