95 T.C. 209 (1990), 27857-89, White v. C.I.R.
|Citation:||95 T.C. 209|
|Opinion Judge:||NIMS, CHIEF JUDGE:|
|Party Name:||WALLACE J. WHITE AND SANDRA J. WHITE, Petitioners v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent|
|Attorney:||James F. Hart, for the petitioners. Jeffrey I. Rosenberg and Thomas F. Eagan, for the respondent.|
|Judge Panel:||CHABOT, PARKER, HAMBLEN, COHEN, SWIFT, JACOBS, GERBER, WRIGHT, WELLS, RUWE, WHALEN, and HALPERN, JJ., agree with the majority. DISSENT OF JUDGE PARR PARR, J., dissenting:|
|Case Date:||August 30, 1990|
|Court:||United States Tax Court|
After the partnership level proceeding was completed, R issued a notice of deficiency to Ps determining that Ps were liable for additional interest under I.R.C. section 6621(c) and additions to tax under I.R.C. sections 6651(a)(1), 6653(a)(1), 6653(a)(2) and 6659. Ps timely filed a petition for redetermination of R's determinations. R filed a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction as to I.R.C. section 6621(c). HELD, this Court does not have jurisdiction under I.R.C. section 6230(a)(2)(A)(i) to redetermine I.R.C. section 6621(c) interest because I.R.C. section 6621(c) interest is not a ‘ deficiency‘ attributable to an affected item requiring partner level determinations. HELD FURTHER, this Court does not have jurisdiction under I.R.C. 6621(c)(4) to determine whether section I.R.C. 6621(c) interest applies because the deficiency before the Court is not a substantial underpayment attributable to tax-motivated transactions.
This case is before the Court on respondent's motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction as to section 6621(c). (Unless otherwise indicated, all section references are to the Internal Revenue Code in effect for 1984 and all Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure. Section 772l(b) of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1989, Pub. L. 101-239, 103 Stat. 2106, 2399, repealed section 6621(c) effective for returns with a due date (determined without regard to extensions) after December 31, 1989.)
On April 5, 1988, respondent issued a Notice of Final Partnership Administrative Adjustment (the FPAA) to the tax matters partner of Accounting Associates partnership (the tax matters partner) determining adjustments to the 1984 Accounting Associates partnership return. On April 5, 1988, respondent mailed a copy of the FPAA to petitioners as notice partners.
No petition was filed by either the tax matters partner, within the 90-day period provided in section 6226(a), or any of the partnership's notice partners within the 60-day period provided in section 6226(b)(1). Thereafter, respondent assessed the deficiency in tax resulting from the partnership adjustments against petitioners as a computational adjustment. See Saso v. Commissioner, 93 T.C. 730, 734 (1989); sec. 6225(c).
By statutory notice of deficiency dated August 17, 1989, respondent determined that petitioners are liable for additional interest under section 6621(c) for 1984. Respondent also determined that petitioners are liable for the following additions to tax for 1984:
|Additions to Tax|
|Sec. 6651(a)(1)||Sec. 6653(a)(1)||Sec. 6653(a)(2)||Sec. 6659|
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP