Donald Ertz - Page 42

                                       - 42 -                                         
          III. Conclusion                                                             
               Petitioner has not shown that respondent’s determination was           
          arbitrary or capricious, or without sound basis in fact or law.             
          For all of the above reasons, we hold that respondent’s                     
          determination was not an abuse of discretion, and respondent may            
          proceed with the proposed collection action.  Further, we hold              
          that we do not have jurisdiction at the partner level to                    
          determine whether a partnership’s transactions were tax-motivated           
          transactions.                                                               
               In reaching our holdings herein, we have considered all                
          arguments made, and, to the extent not mentioned above, we find             
          them to be moot, irrelevant, or without merit.                              
               To reflect the foregoing,                                              

                                                       An appropriate order           
                                                  and decision will be                
                                                  entered.                            

Page:  Previous  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  30  31  32  33  34  35  36  37  38  39  40  41  42