Cinema '84, Richard M. Greenberg, Tax Matters Partner - Page 13

                                       - 13 -                                         
               [of Tax Appeals] decision becomes final, it is of                      
               utmost importance that this time be specified as                       
               accurately as possible.  In some instances in order to                 
               achieve this result the usual rules of law applicable                  
               in court procedure must be changed. * * * [S. Rept. 52,                
               69th Cong., 1st Sess. (1926), 1939-1 C.B. (Part 2) 332,                
               360.]                                                                  
          The legislative history of the TEFRA proceeding specifies that              
          “The principles of section 7481(a) shall govern in determining              
          the date on which a court decision becomes final.”  H. Conf.                
          Rept. 97-760, at 608 (1982), 1982-2 C.B. 600, 666.                          
               As the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit observed,                
          Congress in enacting section 7481 “was conscious of the need that           
          ‘finality’ be clearly defined, so that the process of collection            
          can proceed unimpeded.”  Toscano v. Commissioner, supra at 932.             
          While this concern is apparent in deficiency cases, its force is            
          at least as great in TEFRA partnership cases.  The liability of             
          not just one taxpayer is at stake; rather, it is the liabilities            
          of potentially all of the partners in the partnership.  Thus, if            
          we were to vacate a final decision in a TEFRA case, the result              
          clearly would impede the collection process.  We believe,                   
          therefore, that the reasoning underlying the cases restricting              
          the vacating of final decisions of this Court applies, perhaps              
          even more strongly, to partnership cases.                                   
               There are no viable grounds for vacating the final decision            
          in this case.  Accordingly, granting movant’s motion for leave              








Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011