- 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