Larry J. and Sherilyn Wadsworth - Page 16

                                       - 16 -                                         
               As discussed supra, Gold Coast’s partnership returns were              
          marked “No” in the columns next to the question “Is this                    
          partnership subject to the consolidated audit procedures of                 
          sections 6221 through 6233?”.  No election statement was filed              
          with the partnership returns.  Under such circumstances, it is              
          not clear from merely inserting Mr. Wadsworth’s name in the tax             
          matters partner box that Gold Coast was electing to be subject to           
          the TEFRA procedures.  The Gold Coast returns--coupled with the             
          complete absence of any election statement--exhibit more of an              
          intent to fall outside the TEFRA procedures than an intent to               
          positively elect into them.  Gold Coast therefore failed to elect           
          to be subject to TEFRA, and we will deny petitioners’ amended               
          motion to dismiss.                                                          
          II.  Petitioners’ Amended Motion To Strike                                  
               In support of their amended motion to strike, petitioners              
          argue that paragraph 8 of respondent’s answer is an impermissible           
          attempt to supply the information that was required in the notice           
          of deficiency.                                                              
               Motions to strike are analyzed under Rule 52.  Rule 52                 
          provides that this Court, upon a timely motion of the parties or            
          on its own initiative, may strike from any pleading any                     
          insufficient claim or defense or any redundant, immaterial,                 
          impertinent, frivolous, or scandalous matter.  Rule 52 was                  
          derived from rule 12(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.            

Page:  Previous  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011