- 15 -
v. McDonough, 547 U.S. , 126 S. Ct. 1675, 1681 (2006) (“A
statute of limitations defense * * * is not ‘jurisdictional’”);
Kontrick v. Ryan, 540 U.S. 443, 458 (2004) (“Time bars * * *
generally must be raised in an answer or responsive pleading.”);
see also Davenport Recycling Associates v. Commissioner, 220 F.3d
1255, 1259 (11th Cir. 2000), affg. T.C. Memo. 1998-347; Chimblo
v. Commissioner, 177 F.3d 119, 125 (2d Cir. 1999), affg. T.C.
Memo. 1997-535; Columbia Bldg., Ltd. v. Commissioner, 98 T.C.
607, 611 (1992); Robinson v. Commissioner, 57 T.C. 735, 737
(1972). Where, as here, the claim of a time bar relates to items
of a partnership, the claim must be made in the partnership
proceeding and may not be considered at a proceeding involving
the personal income tax liability of one or more of the partners
of the partnership. See Davenport Recycling Associates v.
Commissioner, supra at 1259-1260; Chimblo v. Commissioner, supra
at 125; Kaplan v. United States, 133 F.3d 469, 473 (7th Cir.
1998).
Second, petitioners argue that Cochran’s rejection of their
offer-in-compromise conflicts with the congressional committee
reports underlying the enactment of section 7122. According to
petitioners, their case is a “longstanding” case, and those
reports require that respondent resolve such cases by forgiving
interest and penalties that otherwise apply. We disagree with
petitioners’ reading and application of the legislative history
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011