Michael V. Domulewicz and Mary Ann Domulewicz - Page 22




                                       - 22 -                                         
          supports its plain reading.  In its report underlying the                   
          amendment adding the parenthetical text to section                          
          6230(a)(2)(A)(i), the House Committee on Ways and Means explained           
          that it had proposed the amendment because                                  
                    Many penalties are based upon the conduct of the                  
               taxpayer.  With respect to partnerships, the relevant                  
               conduct often occurs at the partnership level.  In                     
               addition, applying penalties at the partner level                      
               through the deficiency procedures following the                        
               conclusion of the unified proceeding at the partnership                
               level increases the administrative burden on the IRS                   
               and can significantly increase the Tax Court’s                         
               inventory.  [H. Rept. 105-148, at 594 (1997), 1997-4                   
               C.B. (Vol. 1) 319, 916.15]                                             
          The House committee report goes on to explain that the proposed             
          amendment “provides that the partnership-level proceeding is to             
          include a determination of the applicability of penalties at the            
          partnership level.  However, the provision allows partners to               
          raise any partner-level defenses in a refund forum.”  Id.                   
               Given the enactment of the amendment, we conclude that the             
          deficiency procedures no longer apply to the assessment of any              
          partnership-item penalty determined at the partnership level,               
          regardless of whether further partner-level determinations are              
          required.  The Secretary in interpreting the amendment has                  


               15 The Senate Finance Committee stated similarly in its                
          report.  See S. Rept. 105-33, at 261 (1997), 1997-4 C.B. (Vol. 2)           
          1067, 1341; see also H. Conf. Rept. 105-220, at 685 (1997),                 
          1997-4 C.B. (Vol. 2) 1457, 2155 (stating that “The Senate                   
          amendment is the same as the House bill” and that “The conference           
          agreement follows the House bill and the Senate amendment, with             
          technical modifications”).                                                  






Page:  Previous  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  Next 

Last modified: November 10, 2007