-23-
criminal problems and the Commissioner’s efforts to bend them to
his will. Here, by contrast, respondent’s agents never asked any
of Leatherstocking’s limited partners to extend the periods of
limitations for the subject years. Nor do we find that Steele
tried to ingratiate himself with respondent, that Steele signed
the consents because of the criminal investigations or the fraud
referral, or that the consents were signed for a grant of
immunity or in exchange for other favorable treatment. We also
do not find that respondent attempted to mislead the
Leatherstocking limited partners about the existence of Steele’s
criminal problems or instructed Steele to do so.6
Petitioner also argues that respondent was required to
remove Steele as TMP on account of the criminal investigation of
Steele and that respondent’s failure to do so was an abuse of
discretion. We disagree. In the case of a criminal
investigation, section 6231(c)(2) provides that partnership items
become nonpartnership items “To the extent that the Secretary
determines and provides by regulations that to treat items as
6 Petitioner also asserts that respondent knew by July 1993
that Steele was a “narcissistic sociopath who had no regard for
anyone or anything except himself and his own needs”, and that
respondent had a “powerful incentive” in and after June 1990 to
delay the conclusion of the audit of the subject years in that
such a delay allowed respondent to determine fraud against
Steele. The record does not support a finding of either of these
assertions.
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011