- 7 -
Discussion
We decide whether the FPAA sent to petitioner met the notice
requirement of section 6223(a). Petitioner argues it did not
because CM Trust, rather than petitioner, was the partner of
Ovation and respondent did not mail an FPAA to CM Trust.
Respondent asserts that he had sufficient information identifying
petitioner as an indirect partner of Ovation and establishing
petitioner’s mailing address and indirect profits interest in
Ovation. Respondent argues section 6223(c)(3) thus required
respondent to mail the FPAA directly to petitioner, rather than
to CM Trust. We agree with respondent.
Section 6223(a) provides that the Commissioner must notify
certain partners of the beginning and end of a partnership audit.
With respect to an “indirect partner” owning an interest in the
partnership through a “pass-thru partner” who would otherwise be
entitled to notice, the Commissioner must give notice to the
indirect partner, in lieu of the pass-thru partner, if the
Commissioner is properly furnished with information as to the
indirect partner’s name, address, and indirect profits interest
in the partnership. See sec. 6223(c)(3); see also sec.
6231(a)(9) (defining a “pass-through partner” as “a partnership,
estate, trust, S corporation, nominee, or other similar person
through whom other persons hold an interest in the partnership”);
sec. 6231(a)(10) (defining an “indirect partner” as a “person
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 10, 2007