Kligfeld Holdings, Kligfeld Corporation, Tax Matters Partner - Page 16

                                       - 16 -                                         
          A.   Section 6501                                                           
               Kligfeld relies on the undisputed fact that he and Estrin              
          filed their joint return for 1999 on August 15, 2000, which was             
          after Holdings 2 filed its return.  The Commissioner didn’t mail            
          the FPAA to Holdings 2 until September 22, 2004.  Even if the               
          period of limitations was based on the Kligfelds’ later filing              
          date, September 22, 2004 is more than three years after August              
          15, 2000.  Therefore, Kligfeld argues, the FPAA is time-barred              
          and invalid.                                                                
               The flaw in this argument is plain.  The Commissioner is not           
          arguing that the Kligfelds’ 1999 return included partnership                
          items challenged in the FPAA sent to Holdings 2--he’s arguing               
          that it was the Kligfelds’ 2000 return that included the                    
          challenged items.  Their 2000 personal return was filed--again,             
          this is not disputed--in April 2001.                                        
               April 2001 is, of course, still more than three years                  
          removed from September 2004; but the general three-year limit               
          under section 6501 is subject to a number of exceptions.  The               
          Commissioner relies on section 7609, which Congress added to the            
          Code in response to the problem caused by the reluctance of those           
          selling alleged tax shelters to give up their customers’ names to           
          the IRS.  Both parties agree that section 7609 applies here                 
          because the IRS issued a “John Doe” summons to Jenkens &                    
          Gilchrist, to get the name of each of its clients who                       

Page:  Previous  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  Next 

Last modified: November 10, 2007