- 38 -
on March 6, 1993, and by the IRS on March 30, 1993, were invalid
because of Hoyt’s disabling conflicts of interests, we must still
decide the alternative issue asserted by respondent as to whether
the 6-year period for assessment provided in section
6229(c)(1)(B) applies because of fraud.
Petitioners contend that respondent failed to prove that
Hoyt had a specific intent to evade tax and that each sheep
partnership return included false or fraudulent items. They
assert that respondent cannot rely solely on petitioners’
admissions that there were false items on the partnership
returns. To the contrary, respondent contends that he has
clearly and convincingly carried his burden of proof and met all
of the necessary requirements of section 6229(c)(1)(A) and (B).
We agree with respondent.
The 6-year limitations period applies if four requirements
are met: (1) The entity is a partnership; (2) the partnership
return includes a false or fraudulent item; (3) a partner signed
or participated directly or indirectly in the preparation of the
return; and (4) the partner signed or participated with the
intent to evade tax. Sec. 6229(c)(1); Transpac Drilling Venture,
1983-2 v. United States, 83 F.3d 1410, 1414 (Fed. Cir. 1996),
affg. 32 Fed. Cl. 810 (1995); cf. Allen v. Commissioner, 128 T.C.
37 (2007). There is no requirement that the signer of the
partnership return intend to evade his own taxes. The 6-year
Page: Previous 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 Next
Last modified: November 10, 2007