§6225(b) — Determination of imputed underpayments
32 cases·29 followed·3 cited—91% support
Statute Text — 26 U.S.C. §6225(b)
For purposes of this subchapter—
Except as otherwise provided in this section, any imputed underpayment with respect to any reviewed year shall be determined by the Secretary by—
appropriately netting all partnership adjustments with respect to such reviewed year, and
applying the highest rate of tax in effect for the reviewed year under section 1 or 11.
In the case of any adjustment which reallocates the distributive share of any item from one partner to another, such adjustment shall be taken into account by disregarding so much of such adjustment as results in a decrease in the amount of the imputed underpayment.
For purposes of paragraph (1)(A), partnership adjustments for any reviewed year shall first be separately determined (and netted as appropriate) within each category of items that are required to be taken into account separately under section 702(a) or other provision of this title.
If any adjustment would (but for this paragraph)—
result in a decrease in the amount of the imputed underpayment, and
could be subject to any additional limitation under the provisions of this title (or not allowed, in whole or in part, against ordinary income) if such adjustment were taken into account by any person,
such adjustment shall not be taken into account under paragraph (1)(A) except to the extent otherwise provided by the Secretary.
32 Citing Cases
r's income that he assigned to the partnership, then the asserted deficiency against him from the adjustment would not be attributable to a partnership item, and consideration of the adjustment in the instant cases will not be enjoinable pursuant to section 6225(b). See sec. 6225(a) and (b). The adjustment to Kanter’s income further would not be an "affected item". Sec. 6231(a)(5); NCF Energy Partners v. Commissioner, 89 T.C. 741, 743-746 (1987); Maxwell v. Commissioner, 87 T.C. 783, 792-793 (19
r's income that he assigned to the partnership, then the asserted deficiency against him from the adjustment would not be attributable to a partnership item, and consideration of the adjustment in the instant cases will not be enjoinable pursuant to section 6225(b). See sec. 6225(a) and (b). The adjustment to Kanter’s income further would not be an "affected item". Sec. 6231(a)(5); NCF Energy Partners v. Commissioner, 89 T.C. 741, 743-746 (1987); Maxwell v. Commissioner, 87 T.C. 783, 792-793 (19
r's income that he assigned to the partnership, then the asserted deficiency against him from the adjustment would not be attributable to a partnership item, and consideration of the adjustment in the instant cases will not be enjoinable pursuant to section 6225(b). See sec. 6225(a) and (b). The adjustment to Kanter’s income further would not be an "affected item". Sec. 6231(a)(5); NCF Energy Partners v. Commissioner, 89 T.C. 741, 743-746 (1987); Maxwell v. Commissioner, 87 T.C. 783, 792-793 (19
r's income that he assigned to the partnership, then the asserted deficiency against him from the adjustment would not be attributable to a partnership item, and consideration of the adjustment in the instant cases will not be enjoinable pursuant to section 6225(b). See sec. 6225(a) and (b). The adjustment to Kanter’s income further would not be an "affected item". Sec. 6231(a)(5); NCF Energy Partners v. Commissioner, 89 T.C. 741, 743-746 (1987); Maxwell v. Commissioner, 87 T.C. 783, 792-793 (19
r's income that he assigned to the partnership, then the asserted deficiency against him from the adjustment would not be attributable to a partnership item, and consideration of the adjustment in the instant cases will not be enjoinable pursuant to section 6225(b). See sec. 6225(a) and (b). The adjustment to Kanter’s income further would not be an "affected item". Sec. 6231(a)(5); NCF Energy Partners v. Commissioner, 89 T.C. 741, 743-746 (1987); Maxwell v. Commissioner, 87 T.C. 783, 792-793 (19
r's income that he assigned to the partnership, then the asserted deficiency against him from the adjustment would not be attributable to a partnership item, and consideration of the adjustment in the instant cases will not be enjoinable pursuant to section 6225(b). See sec. 6225(a) and (b). The adjustment to Kanter’s income further would not be an "affected item". Sec. 6231(a)(5); NCF Energy Partners v. Commissioner, 89 T.C. 741, 743-746 (1987); Maxwell v. Commissioner, 87 T.C. 783, 792-793 (19
r's income that he assigned to the partnership, then the asserted deficiency against him from the adjustment would not be attributable to a partnership item, and consideration of the adjustment in the instant cases will not be enjoinable pursuant to section 6225(b). See sec. 6225(a) and (b). The adjustment to Kanter’s income further would not be an "affected item". Sec. 6231(a)(5); NCF Energy Partners v. Commissioner, 89 T.C. 741, 743-746 (1987); Maxwell v. Commissioner, 87 T.C. 783, 792-793 (19
r's income that he assigned to the partnership, then the asserted deficiency against him from the adjustment would not be attributable to a partnership item, and consideration of the adjustment in the instant cases will not be enjoinable pursuant to section 6225(b). See sec. 6225(a) and (b). The adjustment to Kanter’s income further would not be an "affected item". Sec. 6231(a)(5); NCF Energy Partners v. Commissioner, 89 T.C. 741, 743-746 (1987); Maxwell v. Commissioner, 87 T.C. 783, 792-793 (19
r's income that he assigned to the partnership, then the asserted deficiency against him from the adjustment would not be attributable to a partnership item, and consideration of the adjustment in the instant cases will not be enjoinable pursuant to section 6225(b). See sec. 6225(a) and (b). The adjustment to Kanter’s income further would not be an "affected item". Sec. 6231(a)(5); NCF Energy Partners v. Commissioner, 89 T.C. 741, 743-746 (1987); Maxwell v. Commissioner, 87 T.C. 783, 792-793 (19
r's income that he assigned to the partnership, then the asserted deficiency against him from the adjustment would not be attributable to a partnership item, and consideration of the adjustment in the instant cases will not be enjoinable pursuant to section 6225(b). See sec. 6225(a) and (b). The adjustment to Kanter’s income further would not be an "affected item". Sec. 6231(a)(5); NCF Energy Partners v. Commissioner, 89 T.C. 741, 743-746 (1987); Maxwell v. Commissioner, 87 T.C. 783, 792-793 (19
r's income that he assigned to the partnership, then the asserted deficiency against him from the adjustment would not be attributable to a partnership item, and consideration of the adjustment in the instant cases will not be enjoinable pursuant to section 6225(b). See sec. 6225(a) and (b). The adjustment to Kanter’s income further would not be an "affected item". Sec. 6231(a)(5); NCF Energy Partners v. Commissioner, 89 T.C. 741, 743-746 (1987); Maxwell v. Commissioner, 87 T.C. 783, 792-793 (19
's income .that he assigned to the partnership, then the asserted deficiency against him from the adjustment would not be attributable to a partnership item, and consideration of the adjustment in the instcnt cases will not be enjoinable pursuant to section 6225(b). See sec. 6225(a) and (b). The adjustment to Kanter's income further would not be an "affected item". Sec. 6231(a)(5); NCF Energy Partners v. Commissioner, 89 T.C. 741, 743-746 (1987); Maxwell v. Commissioner, 87 T.C. 783, 792-793 (19
r's income that he assigned to the partnership, then the asserted deficiency against him from the adjustment would not be attributable to a partnership item, and consideration of the adjustment in the instant cases will not be enjoinable pursuant to section 6225(b). See sec. 6225(a) and (b). The adjustment to Kanter’s income further would not be an "affected item". Sec. 6231(a)(5); NCF Energy Partners v. Commissioner, 89 T.C. 741, 743-746 (1987); Maxwell v. Commissioner, 87 T.C. 783, 792-793 (19
r's income that he assigned to the partnership, then the asserted deficiency against him from the adjustment would not be attributable to a partnership item, and consideration of the adjustment in the instant cases will not be enjoinable pursuant to section 6225(b). See sec. 6225(a) and (b). The adjustment to Kanter’s income further would not be an "affected item". Sec. 6231(a)(5); NCF Energy Partners v. Commissioner, 89 T.C. 741, 743-746 (1987); Maxwell v. Commissioner, 87 T.C. 783, 792-793 (19
r's income that he assigned to the partnership, then the asserted deficiency against him from the adjustment would not be attributable to a partnership item, and consideration of the adjustment in the instant cases will not be enjoinable pursuant to section 6225(b). See sec. 6225(a) and (b). The adjustment to Kanter’s income further would not be an "affected item". Sec. 6231(a)(5); NCF Energy Partners v. Commissioner, 89 T.C. 741, 743-746 (1987); Maxwell v. Commissioner, 87 T.C. 783, 792-793 (19
r's income that he assigned to the partnership, then the asserted deficiency against him from the adjustment would not be attributable to a partnership item, and consideration of the adjustment in the instant cases will not be enjoinable pursuant to section 6225(b). See sec. 6225(a) and (b). The adjustment to Kanter’s income further would not be an "affected item". Sec. 6231(a)(5); NCF Energy Partners v. Commissioner, 89 T.C. 741, 743-746 (1987); Maxwell v. Commissioner, 87 T.C. 783, 792-793 (19
r's income that he assigned to the partnership, then the asserted deficiency against him from the adjustment would not be attributable to a partnership item, and consideration of the adjustment in the instant cases will not be enjoinable pursuant to section 6225(b). See sec. 6225(a) and (b). The adjustment to Kanter’s income further would not be an "affected item". Sec. 6231(a)(5); NCF Energy Partners v. Commissioner, 89 T.C. 741, 743-746 (1987); Maxwell v. Commissioner, 87 T.C. 783, 792-793 (19
r's income that he assigned to the partnership, then the asserted deficiency against him from the adjustment would not be attributable to a partnership item, and consideration of the adjustment in the instant cases will not be enjoinable pursuant to section 6225(b). See sec. 6225(a) and (b). The adjustment to Kanter’s income further would not be an "affected item". Sec. 6231(a)(5); NCF Energy Partners v. Commissioner, 89 T.C. 741, 743-746 (1987); Maxwell v. Commissioner, 87 T.C. 783, 792-793 (19
r's income that he assigned to the partnership, then the asserted deficiency against him from the adjustment would not be attributable to a partnership item, and consideration of the adjustment in the instant cases will not be enjoinable pursuant to section 6225(b). See sec. 6225(a) and (b). The adjustment to Kanter’s income further would not be an "affected item". Sec. 6231(a)(5); NCF Energy Partners v. Commissioner, 89 T.C. 741, 743-746 (1987); Maxwell v. Commissioner, 87 T.C. 783, 792-793 (19
r's income that he assigned to the partnership, then the asserted deficiency against him from the adjustment would not be attributable to a partnership item, and consideration of the adjustment in the instant cases will not be enjoinable pursuant to section 6225(b). See sec. 6225(a) and (b). The adjustment to Kanter’s income further would not be an "affected item". Sec. 6231(a)(5); NCF Energy Partners v. Commissioner, 89 T.C. 741, 743-746 (1987); Maxwell v. Commissioner, 87 T.C. 783, 792-793 (19
r's income that he assigned to the partnership, then the asserted deficiency against him from the adjustment would not be attributable to a partnership item, and consideration of the adjustment in the instant cases will not be enjoinable pursuant to section 6225(b). See sec. 6225(a) and (b). The adjustment to Kanter’s income further would not be an "affected item". Sec. 6231(a)(5); NCF Energy Partners v. Commissioner, 89 T.C. 741, 743-746 (1987); Maxwell v. Commissioner, 87 T.C. 783, 792-793 (19
r's income that he assigned to the partnership, then the asserted deficiency against him from the adjustment would not be attributable to a partnership item, and consideration of the adjustment in the instant cases will not be enjoinable pursuant to section 6225(b). See sec. 6225(a) and (b). The adjustment to Kanter’s income further would not be an "affected item". Sec. 6231(a)(5); NCF Energy Partners v. Commissioner, 89 T.C. 741, 743-746 (1987); Maxwell v. Commissioner, 87 T.C. 783, 792-793 (19
r's income that he assigned to the partnership, then the asserted deficiency against him from the adjustment would not be attributable to a partnership item, and consideration of the adjustment in the instant cases will not be enjoinable pursuant to section 6225(b). See sec. 6225(a) and (b). The adjustment to Kanter’s income further would not be an "affected item". Sec. 6231(a)(5); NCF Energy Partners v. Commissioner, 89 T.C. 741, 743-746 (1987); Maxwell v. Commissioner, 87 T.C. 783, 792-793 (19
r's income that he assigned to the partnership, then the asserted deficiency against him from the adjustment would not be attributable to a partnership item, and consideration of the adjustment in the instant cases will not be enjoinable pursuant to section 6225(b). See sec. 6225(a) and (b). The adjustment to Kanter’s income further would not be an "affected item". Sec. 6231(a)(5); NCF Energy Partners v. Commissioner, 89 T.C. 741, 743-746 (1987); Maxwell v. Commissioner, 87 T.C. 783, 792-793 (19
r's income that he assigned to the partnership, then the asserted deficiency against him from the adjustment would not be attributable to a partnership item, and consideration of the adjustment in the instant cases will not be enjoinable pursuant to section 6225(b). See sec. 6225(a) and (b). The adjustment to Kanter’s income further would not be an "affected item". Sec. 6231(a)(5); NCF Energy Partners v. Commissioner, 89 T.C. 741, 743-746 (1987); Maxwell v. Commissioner, 87 T.C. 783, 792-793 (19
r's income that he assigned to the partnership, then the asserted deficiency against him from the adjustment would not be attributable to a partnership item, and consideration of the adjustment in the instant cases will not be enjoinable pursuant to section 6225(b). See sec. 6225(a) and (b). The adjustment to Kanter’s income further would not be an "affected item". Sec. 6231(a)(5); NCF Energy Partners v. Commissioner, 89 T.C. 741, 743-746 (1987); Maxwell v. Commissioner, 87 T.C. 783, 792-793 (19
r's income that he assigned to the partnership, then the asserted deficiency against him from the adjustment would not be attributable to a partnership item, and consideration of the adjustment in the instant cases will not be enjoinable pursuant to section 6225(b). See sec. 6225(a) and (b). The adjustment to Kanter’s income further would not be an "affected item". Sec. 6231(a)(5); NCF Energy Partners v. Commissioner, 89 T.C. 741, 743-746 (1987); Maxwell v. Commissioner, 87 T.C. 783, 792-793 (19
r's income that he assigned to the partnership, then the asserted deficiency against him from the adjustment would not be attributable to a partnership item, and consideration of the adjustment in the instant cases will not be enjoinable pursuant to section 6225(b). See sec. 6225(a) and (b). The adjustment to Kanter’s income further would not be an "affected item". Sec. 6231(a)(5); NCF Energy Partners v. Commissioner, 89 T.C. 741, 743-746 (1987); Maxwell v. Commissioner, 87 T.C. 783, 792-793 (19
If a petition is filed in the Tax Court, section 6225(b) generally allows the Tax Court to enjoin assessment while that proceeding is ongoing.
The imputed 9 underpayment is ultimately assessed and collected in the year of the adjustment, not the year under review. I.R.C. §§ 6225(a)(1), 6232(a); see also I.R.C. § 6225(d). But after the NOPPA and before assessment, the partnership may submit a request to modify the imputed underpayment set forth in the NOPPA. I.R.C. § 622