9
treated the items at issue”; and (2) “allow as deductions from
the partnership taxable income each and every payment allocated
from income to the withdrawing partners as reasonable and
appropriate payment properly allocated from the partnership
income and taxable to these respective partners”.
A copy of the FPAA in the instant case was sent to Handler.
On May 22, 2003, Handler filed a petition for redetermination
with the Court challenging the FPAA. On July 18, 2003,
respondent filed a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction on
the ground that respondent did not issue a notice of deficiency
to Handler for 1996. On September 29, 2003, we issued an order
granting respondent’s motion, but noted that Handler’s remedy was
to file a motion for leave to file a notice of election to
participate and submit a notice of election to participate in the
instant case pursuant to Rule 245. On November 3, 2003, the
Court granted Handler leave to file his notice of election to
participate, which sets forth Handler’s contention that he was
not a partner in W&R during 1996.
OPINION
This TEFRA proceeding was brought by the tax matters partner
of the law firm. Congress promulgated the TEFRA partnership
unified audit and litigation provisions of sections 6221 through
6234 intending to simplify and streamline the audit, litigation,
and assessment procedures with respect to partnerships and their
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011