- 15 -
Trading.8
In petitioners’ respective motions, petitioners ask the
Court to dismiss these cases for lack of jurisdiction as to all
the determinations in the respective notices of deficiency for
the taxable years 1999 and 2000 that respondent issued to them
except the determination set forth in paragraph 8 of those
notices.9 That paragraph stated:10
It is further determined, in the alternative, that the
loss claimed on your 1999 and 2000 federal income tax
return should be decreased by the amount of $11,687,810
and $15,495,756 to reflect the fact that the amount
invested in the option transaction purportedly generat-
ing the losses claimed represents a single, unitary
investment of $26,700,190 in a single option position
rather than a net investment in the same amount in
offsetting option positions.
In support of petitioners’ position in petitioners’ respec-
tive motions that the Court has jurisdiction over the above-
quoted determination, petitioners argue:11
8With respect to the affected items, respondent points out
that the partnership proceeding for the taxable years 1999 and
2000 with respect to Evergreen Trading is currently pending in
the United States Court of Federal Claims.
9With the exception of the determination set forth in para-
graph 8 of the respective notices of deficiency in question,
petitioners agree with respondent that the determinations in
those notices constitute partnership items, as defined in sec.
6231(a)(3), or affected items, as defined in sec. 6231(a)(5),
relating to Evergreen Trading.
10See supra note 5.
11For convenience, we quote from petitioner’s motion in the
case at docket No. 24289-05. That motion is virtually the same
(continued...)
Page: Previous 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Next
Last modified: November 10, 2007