- 4 -
RESPONDENT'S DETERMINATION IN FULL.” The order was served on all
the partners who were still linked to the partnership proceeding.
At the hearing the only appearance was made by counsel for some
of the participating partners who asked the Court to delay the
dismissal for 90 days to determine whether there was any partner
who wished to proceed with the litigation and would become the
tax matters partner. That time was subsequently extended to
November 4, 1999. There was no appearance by any partner who
desired to prosecute this case. On June 23, 2000, respondent
filed a Notice of Consistent Agreement. By an Order of Dismissal
and Decision entered on September 1, 2000, respondent’s Motion to
Dismiss for Failure to Properly Prosecute filed July 10, 1995,
was granted, and respondent’s determinations of partnership
adjustments for the taxable years 1985, 1986, 1987, 1988, and
1989 were sustained.
The order of dismissal and decision was appealed with
respect to the Court’s holding that certain partners were not
entitled to a consistent settlement and whether one partner,
Karin M. Locke, was still properly before the Court. The Court
of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed as to the first issue
and reversed as to the second. Cinema ‘84 v. Commissioner,
supra. The Mandate of the Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit was filed May 21, 2002, and no petition for a writ of
certiorari was filed. On March 24, 2003, the Court issued an
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011