- 5 -
same basis as the final resolution of those issues in Chimblo v.
Commissioner, supra. In a motion for continuance filed on
August 31, 1998, the parties represented “that all of the issues
in this case shall be resolved on the same basis as such issues
are resolved in the case in this Court of * * * [Chimblo]”. In a
motion for continuance filed on December 15, 1999, the parties
again represented “that all of the issues in this case shall be
resolved on the same basis as such issues are resolved in the
case in this Court of * * * [Chimblo]”.
Based on the above representations, we granted the requested
continuances of the scheduled trial dates, awaiting the outcome
of the appeal to the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit that
had been filed in Chimblo.
Among other issues, the primary issue decided in Chimblo was
whether individual partners could, in an affected-items
proceeding, raise a statute of limitations issue relating to the
audit of the underlying partnership where such statute of
limitations issue had not been raised in the related partnership
level proceeding. In its opinion filed on May 17, 1999, the
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed our decision in
Chimblo and held that the failure to raise a statute of
limitations issue in a partnership level proceeding precluded the
issue being raised in an affected-items proceeding. Chimblo v.
Commissioner, supra at 125. The Court of Appeals for the Second
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011