- 9 -
been the same regardless of whether the assessment period was
controlled by section 6229 or 6501. See id. at 155 (“The more
precise question in this case * * * is whether the taxpayers’
refund requests are attributable to any partnership item such
that the district court would be deprived of jurisdiction.”).
The U.S. Court of Federal Claims would also distinguish Weiner
from the facts of the instant case. In Grapevine Imports, Ltd.
v. United States, 71 Fed. Cl. 324 (2006), the court concluded
that the above-quoted language from Weiner as to the date of
expiration of the assessment period was dictum and that the Court
of Appeals was “not focused on the issue involving the interplay
between sections 6229(a) and 6501.” Id. at 330.
We conclude that the period for assessing tax against the
partners has not expired. Neither Weiner nor any of the other
cases cited by petitioner dictate a contrary result.
Accordingly, we shall deny petitioner’s motion to dismiss for
lack of jurisdiction and to strike and petitioner’s motion for
summary judgment.4
4 Petitioner also argues at length that we cannot consider
when the partners filed their respective tax returns because the
filing dates are nonpartnership items. This position contradicts
the holding of Rhone-Poulenc Surfactants & Specialties, L.P. v.
Commissioner, 114 T.C. 533 (2000), where we examined the
partners’ filing dates to decide when the assessment period under
sec. 6501 expired. Although petitioner contends its position
does not conflict with our existing caselaw, petitioner has not
explained how the Court can apply the holding of Rhone-Poulenc
without examining the partners’ filing dates. Petitioner’s
(continued...)
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 10, 2007