- 10 - 123 (1992); Gladstone v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1992-10. That is because, as relevant here, the record would have to be reopened in order to permit petitioners to introduce the spreadsheet into evidence to establish a discrepancy between petitioners’ and respondent’s computations of petitioner’s Finley Kumble COD income. See Harris v. Commissioner, supra at 124; Cloes v. Commissioner, 79 T.C. 933, 937 (1982). Issues considered in a Rule 155 proceeding are limited to “purely mathematically generated computational items”. The Home Group, Inc. v. Commissioner, 91 T.C. 265, 269 (1988), affd. on another issue 875 F.2d 377 (2d Cir. 1989). Petitioners do not claim there is a mathematical error or that the formula resulting from application of the two-step process was improperly applied; rather they argue the two-step process was not the proper method to allocate COD income. The notice of deficiency, notice of final partnership administrative adjustment, and petitioner’s Schedule K-1 gave petitioners notice of the amount of COD income allocated to petitioner. Petitioners did not provide any reasons why they failed to raise this issue prior to the Rule 155 computation. We did not find or hold in our prior opinion that petitioner’s .0170-percent profits or capital interest should or did determine the amount of COD income that should be allocated to petitioner.Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011