- 9 -
If respondent’s position in this proceeding is correct, the
FPAA was sent within the 6-year period of limitations, and the
FPAA, by reason of section 6229(d), would suspend the period of
limitations applicable to assessment of the liabilities of the
partners. If we adopt petitioners’ position in this case, the
applicability of the period of limitations requires analysis of
the situation of each partner, i.e., whether the partner’s tax
year is open to assessment. If the period of limitations is open
with respect to any partner in the partnership, the adjustments
made in the FPAA in issue would have to be examined on the
merits. However, the parties have stipulated that they know of
no other exceptions to the normal 3-year period with respect to
the individual partners, and respondent has conceded that, if the
Court determines that petitioners’ failure to include net gain
from the sale of property does not constitute an omission from
gross income, the Court should grant petitioners’ motion for
summary judgment.
Although section 6229 does not repeat all of the terms and
provisions already set forth in section 6501, the precedents
interpreting section 6501(e)(1)(A)(ii) have been held equally
applicable to section 6229(c)(2), and that principle is not
disputed here. In this case, however, respondent implies that an
interpretation under the Internal Revenue Code of 1939 should not
apply to the current Code provisions.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 10, 2007