- 9 -
Although the IRS could have discovered this information using its
own records, in this case it chose not to. As a result,
petitioner was not entitled to receive personal notification by
the IRS of the Wilshire audit. Instead, Asher’s TMP was required
to notify petitioner of the partnership level proceedings. Sec.
6223(g) and (h)(2).
II. Consistent Settlement Issue
Petitioner next argues that he is entitled to abatement of
interest for the same period that the Commissioner granted
abatement of interest to the taxpayer in Beagles v. Commissioner,
T.C. Memo. 2003-67. Like petitioner, the taxpayer in Beagles was
an indirect investor in Wilshire, through a second-tier
partnership. She requested abatement of interest for the entire
period between 1984 and 2000. The Appeals officer granted her
request for the period May 8, 1992, through April 15, 1999, the
date on which a closing agreement was signed by that second-tier
partnership with respect to its 1983 and 1984 Wilshire
investments.
Section 6224(c) requires the Commissioner to offer
consistent settlement terms to partners with respect to the tax
treatment of partnership items. Petitioner’s liability for
increased interest under section 6621(c) is not a “partnership
item”; it is, instead, an “affected item” that relates to
partnership items but must be determined at the individual level.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011