Michael V. Domulewicz and Mary Ann Domulewicz - Page 4




                                        - 4 -                                         
          20-percent shareholder.3  Petitioners argue that the deficiency             
          procedures do not apply to this item.  Respondent argues to the             
          contrary, asserting that a partner-level determination was                  
          required as to this item.  We agree with respondent.                        
               2.  Whether respondent’s determination of the                          
          accuracy-related penalties is subject to the deficiency                     
          procedures.  The parties agree that it is not.  So do we.4                  
                                     Background                                       
               Petitioners are husband and wife, and they resided in                  
          Bloomfield Hills, Michigan, when their petition was filed with              
          the Court.  They filed a joint 1999 Form 1040, U.S. Individual              
          Income Tax Return, on or before August 18, 2000.                            
               Petitioner was a 20-percent shareholder of CTA Acoustics               
          (CTA) when CTA was sold on April 30, 1999, at a gain to the                 
          shareholders of approximately $30 million.  Petitioner’s portion            


               3 DII’s other shareholders were the two other partners in              
          DIP.  Each of those other shareholders owned a 40-percent                   
          interest in DIP and a 40-percent interest in DII.                           
               4 Petitioners’ motion states in part that the Court lacks              
          jurisdiction over both issues because the applicable periods of             
          limitation for assessment of the deficiency and penalties have              
          expired.  Because the expiration of the period of limitation is             
          an affirmative defense and does not affect this Court’s                     
          jurisdiction, see Davenport Recycling Associates v. Commissioner,           
          220 F.3d 1255, 1259 (11th Cir. 2000), affg. T.C. Memo. 1998-347;            
          Columbia Bldg., Ltd. v. Commissioner, 98 T.C. 607, 611 (1992);              
          cf. Day v. McDonough, 547 U.S. 198,    , 126 S. Ct. 1675, 1681              
          (2006) (“A statute of limitations defense * * * is not                      
          ‘jurisdictional’”), we reject without further discussion the                
          portion of petitioners’ arguments dealing with the period of                
          limitation.                                                                 





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  Next 

Last modified: November 10, 2007