-3-
Petitioner argues that the Court’s identity of LTD’s “actual
partners” is a partnership item that is more appropriately made
in this TEFRA partnership-level proceeding than in a
partner-level proceeding because that identification may affect
the allocation of LTD’s income or loss to its partners.
Respondent moves the Court to strike petitioner’s allegation,
arguing that the Court lacks jurisdiction in a TEFRA partnership-
level proceeding to decide whether LTD had an indirect partner
who was an individual. We agree with respondent and shall grant
his motion.
Background1
LTD is a general partnership formed in 1987. Its business
is the practice of law. Its principal place of business was in
Phoenix, Arizona, when the petition commencing this proceeding
was filed with the Court.
During 1999, LTD had three equal direct partners:
Smith/Olsen, Smith & Associates, PLC (Smith/Associates), and
Rossie & Associates, PLC (Rossie/Associates). Smith/Olsen was an
Arizona professional LLC (APLLC) whose members were a complex
trust named 1992 WHO Trust (1-percent owner) and a grantor trust
named SKO-96 Trust (99-percent owner). The grantor of SKO-96
1 The recitations in this Opinion are obtained from the
parties’ stipulations of fact and the exhibits submitted
therewith. We set forth these recitations solely for the purpose
of deciding respondent’s motion.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011