- 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 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011