- 8 -
Memo. 1994-370. Relying on these authorities, respondent argues
that any partnership items of either petitioner or Arivada with
regard to HOMC for 1996 and 1997 were converted as of the time
the bankruptcy petitions were filed in 1998 to nonpartnership
items subject to the deficiency procedures used in this case. We
agree with respondent.
Petitioner has cited neither reason nor authority for his
proposition that filing of the bankruptcy petitions should be
disregarded because Arivada’s bankruptcy case was dismissed
before the notice of deficiency was sent. He achieved a stay in
his earlier case that was lifted by the bankruptcy court so that
the Tax Court case could be resolved. His case was dismissed
after the notice of deficiency was sent to him. We agree with
respondent that petitioner’s argument lacks merit and that the
notice of deficiency properly included what otherwise might have
been regarded as partnership items. Thus, the Court has
jurisdiction over those items in this case.
The parties prepared a stipulation as required by Rule 91
and by the Standing Pre-Trial Order served with the notice of
trial. In the stipulation, petitioner objected on Fifth
Amendment grounds to facts set forth in the stipulation that were
not reasonably subject to dispute. Many of the documents
attached to the stipulation were third-party documents, such as
bank records. Petitioner claims that the Court was required to
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011