-19-
In petitioner’s affected items proceeding (petitioner’s
TEFRA-related case at docket No. 14741-02), petitioner took a
position that is virtually the same as the position that he is
taking in the instant case. In petitioner’s affected items
proceeding, the Court summarized petitioner’s position as fol-
lows:
respondent’s determinations relating to this affected
items proceeding should not be sustained because re-
spondent informed petitioner that, pursuant to the
April 24, 2002, stipulation [in petitioner’s non-TEFRA
case at docket No. 7901-00], petitioner would have an
opportunity to challenge the partnership items. In
support of his contention, petitioner, who is blind,
asserts that he justifiably relied on respondent to
explain the terms of the stipulation.
Hudspath v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2004-75.
The Court rejected petitioner’s position in petitioner’s
affected items proceeding. In so doing, the Court concluded:
Petitioner’s credible testimony and the plain
language of the stipulation (i.e., “The tax treatment
of petitioner’s partnership items * * * will be re-
solved in a separate partnership proceeding”. (Empha-
sis added.)) established that respondent misled peti-
tioner. These facts, however, do not override the
mandate of section 6221 that “the tax treatment of any
partnership item * * * shall be determined at the
partnership level.” Maxwell v. Commissioner, 87 T.C.
783, 787-788 (1986).
Respondent complied with the partnership audit and
litigation procedures and, upon completion of the
partnership-level proceeding, assessed a computational
adjustment against petitioner. See secs. 6223,
6225(a)(2), 6230(a)(1), 6231(a)(6); Brookes v. Commis-
sioner, 108 T.C. 1, 5 (1997). Petitioner had the
opportunity, in the partnership-level proceeding [the
TEFRA case at docket No. 7982-00], to challenge the
partnership items, but he failed to do so. Accord-
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011