- 13 -
exception of section 6231(a)(1)(B)(i) is a denial of their
constitutional right to due process and equal protection and is
therefore invalid; or that we should treat the listing of Mr.
Wadsworth as the tax matters partner on the 2001 and 2002 Forms
1065 as a “deemed” section 6231(a)(1)(B)(ii) election.
Petitioners’ due process arguments are unconvincing.
Petitioners appear to argue that the small partnership exception
of section 6231(a)(1)(B)(i) denies them procedural due process
because it relegates their claims to an individual proceeding
instead of a partnership-level proceeding. We fail to see how
giving petitioners a choice between two procedural frameworks
amounts to a denial of due process.
Nor can we understand how the small partnership exception
injures petitioners’ due process rights by making available
individual-level proceedings in addition to partnership-level
proceedings. The small partnership exception permits this Court
to review in a deficiency suit items that otherwise would be
subject to partnership-level proceedings. The small partnership
exception therefore offers partners of small partnerships
simplified and expedited access to judicial review. We cannot
fathom how such a result somehow amounts to a denial of due
process.
Similarly, we find petitioners’ equal protection arguments
unconvincing. “Legislatures have especially broad latitude in
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011