- 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 NextLast modified: November 10, 2007