- 3 - relating to partnership items did not apply to him, and that the statutory period of limitations on assessing nonpartnership items had expired. We held the Court lacks jurisdiction to determine whether petitioner was not a partner because the Commissioner’s determination of partnership items can be challenged under TEFRA only in a partnership-level proceeding.3 We held petitioner lacks standing to challenge on due process grounds the partnership-level determination that he was a partner in Finley Kumble. This was particularly true for at least two reasons: First, on prior years’ returns, petitioner had claimed he was a partner and the tax benefits derived therefrom; and, second, for 1992, the tax year in issue, he had received a Schedule K-1 (Form 1065), Partner’s Share of Income, Credits, Deductions, Etc., that he failed to take issue with by notifying respondent that he was not a partner by filing Form 8082, Notice of Inconsistent Treatment or Administrative Adjustment Request. See Blonien v. Commissioner, supra at 552-557. Therefore, the period of limitations under section 6229 for the IRS to assess the 3One might wonder how this case ever came to the Court, inasmuch as all the issues have been resolved on the ground of lack of jurisdiction. In our opinion in Blonien v. Commissioner, supra at 550 n.4, we speculated that respondent might have used the “affected items” procedure to enable petitioner (and other Finley Kumble partners) to claim that he need not recognize his share of Finley Kumble’s COD income to the extent of his own insolvency. See sec. 108(a)(1)(B). We observed that petitioner did not claim in his petition that he was insolvent.Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011