- 39 -
statute is applicable to each partner if, in signing a false or
fraudulent partnership return, the signer intended to evade the
taxes of the other partners. Transpac Drilling Venture, 1983-2
v. United States, supra at 1414-1415. There is also no
requirement that the other partners have knowledge of the false
or fraudulent deductions claimed on a partnership return. The
intent of the signer of the partnership return to evade the taxes
of the other partners satisfies the intent element of the 6-year
statute of limitations for making additional assessments under
section 6229(c)(1), which applies when the partnership return
containing false or fraudulent items is signed with intent to
evade tax. Id. It is the fraudulent nature of the return that
extends the limitations period. Allen v. Commissioner, supra at
42.
In these cases there is no dispute that the first three
requirements are satisfied. Petitioners have not contested them.
Indeed, they have acknowledged by their stipulated admissions
that all the sheep partnership returns contained false and
fraudulent deductions, and the facts support those findings.
Likewise, the fact that Hoyt, as TMP, participated in the
preparation of the partnership returns and signed them with the
intent to evade the taxes of the partners is established by
petitioners’ admissions on the workings of Hoyt’s tax shelter
scheme, the sham nature of the transactions and their lack of
Page: Previous 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 Next
Last modified: November 10, 2007