- 31 -
documents are not offered to establish and do not establish that
Mr. Blonien was a partner in Finley Kumble. The documents are
admitted for the purposes offered.
Exhibits 5-J through 9-J consist of documents relevant to
establishing the issuance and timeliness of the FPAA issued to
Finley Kumble. At trial, the parties stipulated to be bound by
the final decision in Overstreet v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo.
2001-13, in which this Court determined that the expiration of
the period of limitations for issuance of the FPAA issued to
Finley Kumble is an affirmative defense that must be raised in a
partnership-level proceeding. Because the taxpayers in
Overstreet did not timely file an appeal from the Tax Court’s
decision, the Tax Court’s decision is now final and binding on
the parties in the case at hand under the terms of their
stipulation. The parties agree that Exhibits 5-J through 9-J are
relevant only if petitioners can challenge the timeliness of the
FPAA in this proceeding. On the basis of the parties’
stipulation to be bound by the final decision in Overstreet, we
hold that petitioners cannot challenge the timeliness of the FPAA
in this proceeding. Therefore, Exhibits 5-J through 9-J are not
relevant.
Petitioners argued in their opening brief that Exhibit 10-J,
a computational adjustment report, is irrelevant. Respondent
pointed out that the exhibit may be necessary to compute the Rule
Page: Previous 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011