- 101 -
secs. 6694(b), 6703(a), 6701(a)(3), 7427; Bailey v. United
States, 927 F. Supp. 1274, 1278 (D.Ariz. 1996), affd. 117 F.3d
1424 (9th Cir. 1997).
D. Conclusion
Based on the foregoing, petitioners have failed to establish
that any of the extensions Jay Hoyt (the TMP) and the IRS
executed are invalid. Accordingly, the Court holds that the
period of limitations with respect to each partnership taxable
year in question did not expire prior to respondent’s issuance of
the FPAA. See Rules 39, 142(a); Madison Recycling Associates. v.
Commissioner, 295 F.3d 280, 286 (2d Cir. 2002); Phillips v.
Commissioner, 272 F.3d 1172 (9th Cir. 2001); Amesbury Apartments,
Ltd. v. Commissioner, 95 T.C. 227, 241-243 (1990). In light of
this holding, respondent’s motion for partial summary judgment is
moot. See supra p. 84.
Issue 3. Whether Some Partnerships’ Purported Purchases of
Breeding Sheep Constitute Either Valuation Overstatements for
Purposes of Section 6621(c)(3)(A)(i) or Sham and Fraudulent
Transactions for Purposes of Section 6621(c)(3)(A)(v)
A. The Parties’ Arguments
1. Petitioners’ Arguments
In their amended petitions, petitioners ask this Court to
determine that purported purchases of breeding sheep reported by
some sheep partnerships are not tax-motivated transactions for
purposes of section 6621(c). Specifically, petitioners argue
that these transactions of the partnerships constitute neither
Page: Previous 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011