§6222 — Partner’s return must be consistent with partnership return

12 cases·7 followed·4 distinguished·1 cited58% support

(a)In general

A partner shall, on the partner’s return, treat any partnership-related item in a manner which is consistent with the treatment of such item on the partnership return.

(b)Underpayment due to inconsistent treatment assessed as math error

Any underpayment of tax by a partner by reason of failing to comply with the requirements of subsection (a) shall be assessed and collected in the same manner as if such underpayment were on account of a mathematical or clerical error appearing on the partner’s return. Paragraph (2) of section 6213(b) shall not apply to any assessment of an underpayment referred to in the preceding sentence.

(c)Exception for notification of inconsistent treatment
(1)In general

In the case of any item referred to in subsection (a), if—

(A)
(i)

the partnership has filed a return but the partner’s treatment on the partner’s return is (or may be) inconsistent with the treatment of the item on the partnership return, or

(ii)

the partnership has not filed a return, and

(B)

the partner files with the Secretary a statement identifying the inconsistency,

subsections (a) and (b) shall not apply to such item.

(2)Partner receiving incorrect information

A partner shall be treated as having complied with subparagraph (B) of paragraph (1) with respect to an item if the partner—

(A)

demonstrates to the satisfaction of the Secretary that the treatment of the item on the partner’s return is consistent with the treatment of the item on the statement furnished to the partner by the partnership, and

(B)

elects to have this paragraph apply with respect to that item.

(d)Final decision on certain positions not binding on partnership

Any final decision with respect to an inconsistent position identified under subsection (c) in a proceeding to which the partnership is not a party shall not be binding on the partnership.

(e)Addition to tax for failure to comply with section

For addition to tax in the case of a partner’s disregard of the requirements of this section, see part II of subchapter A of chapter 68.

  • Treas. Reg. §Treas. Reg. §301.6222-1 Partner's return must be consistent with partnership return
  • Treas. Reg. §Treas. Reg. §301.6222-1(a) Consistent treatment of partnership-related items—(1) In general.
  • Treas. Reg. §Treas. Reg. §301.6222-1(b) Effect of inconsistent treatment—(1) Determination of underpayment of tax resulting from inconsistent treatment.
  • Treas. Reg. §Treas. Reg. §301.6222-1(c) Notification to the IRS when items attributable to a partnership are treated inconsistently—(1) In general.
  • Treas. Reg. §Treas. Reg. §301.6222-1(d) Partner receiving incorrect information—(1) In general.
  • Treas. Reg. §Treas. Reg. §301.6222-1(e) Applicability date—(1) In general.
  • Treas. Reg. §Treas. Reg. §301.6222-1(i) §301.6222-1(i)
  • Treas. Reg. §Treas. Reg. §301.6222-1(v) Example 5.

12 Citing Cases

Jump was an unidentified partner, within the meaning of section 6229(e)(1), of 4 In addition, petitioner argues that the period of limitations exception in section 6501(c)(10) does not apply here because American Milling’s material adviser made timely and sufficient disclosures.

Section 6222 requires a partner to report partnership items on an individual return in a manner consistent with the partnership's reporting.

whether section 911 entitles petitioners to exclude from their gross income for the subject years foreign earned income and housing costs of$184,207, $174,632, $177,876, and $140,416, respectively.5 We hold in accordance with 4Petitioners concede that they failed to report the following items for 2006: interest of$789 from the Larkin Family Partnership (LFP), a "small partnership" within the meaning ofsec.

whether section 911 entitles petitioners to exclude from their gross income for the subject years foreign earned income and housing costs of$184,207, $174,632, $177,876, and $140,416, respectively.5 We hold in accordance with 4Petitioners concede that they failed to report the following items for 2006: interest of$789 from the Larkin Family Partnership (LFP), a "small partnership" within the meaning ofsec.

Application ofSection 6222 We have also considered, on our own motion, the ossible application of section 6222, which requires consistency between how apartner treats a partnership item on his return and how the partnership treats it on its return. See sec. 6222(a). The consequence ofany inconsistency bety een how a partner treats a partnership item on his return and how the partnership treats it on its return is that, unless the partner notifies the Secretary ofthe inconsistency, section 6225,

Application ofSection 6222 We have also considered, on our own motion, the ossible application of section 6222, which requires consistency between how apartner treats a partnership item on his return and how the partnership treats it on its return.

ise provided under this section with respect to such partner, mails to the tax matters partner the notice specified in paragraph (2) of section 6223(a) with respect to such taxable year, or (B) the partner has failed to comply with subsection (b) of section 6222 (relating to notification of inconsistent treatment) with respect to any partnership item for such taxable year, the period for assessing any tax imposed by subtitle A which is attributable to any partnership item (or affected item) for

re partners ofa partnership that was subject to the unified audit and litigation procedures ofI.R.C. secs. 6221-6234. Ps did not report their share ofpartnership items on their return and did not file a notice ofinconsistent treatment. See generally I.R.C. sec. 6222. R assessed the tax attributable to the partnership items as originally reported by the partnership. In this deficiency proceeding, R asserted a negligence penalty relating to Ps' failure to report partnership items. Ps moved to dism

se provided under this section with respect to such partner, mails to the tax matters partner the notice specified in paragraph (2) ofsection 6223(a) with respect to such taxable year, or , (B) the partner has failed to comply with subsection (b) ofsection 6222 (relating to notification of inconsistenttreatment) with respect to any partnership item for such taxable year, the period for assessing any tax imposed by subtitle A which is attributable to any partnership item (or affected item) for su

Jenkins v. Commissioner 102 T.C. 550 · 1994
Cemco Investors, LLC v. United States 515 F.3d 749 · Cir.
Cemco Investors v. United States · Cir.

New cases, delivered.

Get notified when new Tax Court opinions drop.