§6226 — Alternative to payment of imputed underpayment by partnership

35 [*35] (Holmes, J., concurring in result), supplementing and overruling in part 147 T.C.

485 (2017), supplementing and overruling in part 147 T.C.

485 (2017), supplementing and overruling in part 147 T.C.

§ 6226(e). And the prohibition against assessment does not apply.

This makes it hard to distinguish penalties that relate tö partnership items from penalties that don't, since penalties ultimately are calculated on underpayments, which isn't something partnership returns generateby themselves. In Petaluma II, the D.C. Circuit interpreted section 6226(f)'s grant of jurisdiction much more narrowly than the majority does today.

6226(a). The subsequent 60-day period during which any notice partner and any 5-percent group could file a petition for readjustment of partnership items expired on June 24, 2010. See sec. 6226(b) (1). Petitioners mailed their petition for readjustment on July 27, 2010, 33 days·after the expiration of the subsequent 60-day period. Because the petition was not mailed within the.prescribed 60-day period, section 7502 is inapplicable.

As provided in section 6226(f), the manner in which partnership items are 6 Sec. 1398 was enacted as part of the Bankruptcy Tax Act of 1980, Pub. L. 96-589, sec. 3, 94 Stat. 3397. Sec. 1398 does not apply to all types of bankruptcy proceedings but rather only to proceedings under ch.

However, we need not decide this question.

In any event, we are not convinced that respondent’s position renders section 6229(c)(1)(A) superfluous.

None of the Objecting Nonparticipating Partners filed a notice of election to participate pursuant to section 6226(c) and Rule 245(b).

Instead, Putative Participants waited until the last minute before a decision was entered, then sought to participate in this case, claiming an absolute right to do so pursuant to section 6226(c)(2).

This case is a partnership-level action initiated by a petition filed pursuant to section 6226.

Jurisdiction Section 6226 provides for judicial review of FPAAs.

12304-20, respondent argues the FPAA Proceeding is the proper case in which to determine when the Partnership’s taxable year began pursuant to section 6226(f).

This case is a partnership-level action under the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982 (“TEFRA”),1 see § 6221,2 based on a Petition filed by the TMP pursuant to section 6226.

Our Jurisdiction Section 6226 provides for judicial review of FPAAs.

Pursuant to section 6226(a), Diversified filed a District Court action on behalfofAD Equity to contest the FPAA's determinations.

We hold that they are not.

Pursuant to section 6226(a), Diversified filed a District Court action on behalfofAD Equity to contest the FPAA's determinations.

Pursuant to section 6226(a), Diversified filed a District Court action on behalfofAD Equity to contest the FPAA's determinations.

We hold that no charitable-contribution deduction is allowable for the donation ofthe conservation easement by Wendell Falls.

Pursuant to section 6226(a), Diversified filed a District Court action on behalfofAD Equity to contest the FPAA's determinations.

Pursuant to section 6226(a), Diversified filed a District Court action on behalfofAD Equity to contest the FPAA's determinations.

Pursuant to section 6226(a), Diversified filed a District Court action on behalfofAD Equity to contest the FPAA's determinations.

Pursuant to section 6226(a), Diversified filed a District Court action on behalfofAD Equity to contest the FPAA's determinations.

Pursuant to section 6226(a), Diversified filed a District Court action on behalfofAD Equity to contest the FPAA's determinations.

Pursuant to section 6226(a), Diversified filed a District Court action on behalfofAD Equity to contest the FPAA's determinations.

This case is a TEFRA partnership-level action based on a petition filed by the TMP pursuant to section 6226.¹ At issue is Palmolive's entitlement to a charitable contribution deduction for its donation ofa facade easement.

In a partnership-level proceeding filed pursuant to section 6226(a), this Court hasjurisdiction to readjust all partnership items for the partnership year to which the FPAA relates and to readjust the allocation ofsuch items among the partners.

The tax matters partner ofSalt Point Timber, John Hood, timely filed a SERVED Dec 11 2017 - 2 - [*2] petition for a readjustment ofpartnership items under section 6226(a).¹ We havejurisdiction under section 6226(f).2 We hold that no deduction is allowable because the conservation easement is not a "qualified conservation contribution" as defined in section 170(h)(1).

In doing so American Milling made ajurisdictional deposit equal to the amount oftax due pursuant to section 6226(e)(1).6 Because American Milling was a passthrough entity, respondent calculated the amount of 6The amount ofthe TEFRAjurisdictional deposit required to commence a case in Federal court has split the Court ofFederal Claims (the only court that appears to have addressed the issue).

Pursuant to section 6226(f), we may determine partnership items, allocate partnership items among the partners, and determine the applicability ofpenalties, additions to tax, and other amounts relating to our adjustments to partnership items.

We hold that the sale generated ordinary mcome; 'All dollar amounts are rounded to the nearest dollar.

Pursuant to section 6226, petitioner, Charles C.

Pursuant to section 6226(f), we may determine partnership items, allocate partnership items among the partners, and determine the applicability ofpenalties, additions to tax, and other amounts relating to our adjustments to partnership items.

We hold that the sale generated ordinary mcome; 'All dollar amounts are rounded to the nearest dollar.

MEMORANDUMFINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION HALPERN, Judge: These consolidated cases are partnership-level actions based upon petitions filed pursuant to section 6226.2 Jimastowlo Oil, LLC (Jimastowlo), and Oil Coming We Are Humming, LLC (Oil Coming), the two 2Unless otherwise indicated, all section references are to the Internal Revenue Code as amended.

Section 6226 provides for the judicial review ofFPAAs.

On February 12, 2008, Caltex, through its TMP, timely filed a petition pursuant to section 6226 seeking a readjustment ofthe IRS's determinations in the FPAA.

Pursuant to section 6226(a), the tax matters partner has 90 days to.file a petition for readjustment of partnership items.

OPINION HALPERN, Judge : These consolidated cases are partnership- level actions based on petitions filed pursuant to section 6226 .2 We have issued a report granting participating partner Arthur M .

Section 6226 provides in pertinent part : SEC .

OPINION HAINES, Judge : This case is a partnership-level action based on a petition filed pursuant to section 6226 .1 The sole issue raised by petitioners' motion for judgment on the pleadings is whether the period of limitations for making assessments of 1 Unless otherwise indicated, all section references are to the Internal Revenue Code (Code), as amended, and Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Pr

charitable contribution deduction and asserted an imputed underpayment of $13,427,300 and penalties of $5,359,968. On November 29, 2023, petitioner submitted to respondent Form 8988, Election for Alternative to Payment of the Imputed Underpayment – IRC Section 6226. On January 11, 2024, petitioner timely filed a Petition. Petitioner contends in its Motion that the FPA is invalid because the partnership audit rules of the BBA violate the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Cons

Section 7482(b)(1)(E) provides that generally a Tax Court decision following a petition under section 6226 (i.e., a petition resulting from issuance of an FPAA) shall be appealable to the U.S.

The determinations of partnership items in partnership-level proceedings are binding on the partners and may not be challenged in subsequent partner-level proceedings. See secs. 6230(c)(4), 7422(h). 2. TEFRA Penalty Litigation Structure Before TRA 1997 Before Congress enacted TRA 1997, any penalty, addition to tax, or additional amount (

The instant case does not involve any bankruptcy or notice issues and is therefore distinguishable from Third Dividend . However, putting those issues aside, we agree with the holding of the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit that this Court has jurisdiction over a timely petition filed by members of a 5- percent group composed of indirect partners . Therefore, we hold that this Court has jurisdiction over the petition filed by the members of the 5-percent group in docket No . 5078-08 . II .

Because all the partnerships at issue are subject to the provisions enacted in the Tax Equity & Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982 (TEFRA), Pub. L. 97-248, sec. 402(a), 96 Stat. 648, our jurisdiction is limited exclusively to the determination of the tax treatment of partnership items for the partnership year to which the FPAA relates. Se

Because all the partnerships at issue are subject to the provisions enacted in the Tax Equity & Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982 (TEFRA), Pub. L. 97-248, sec. 402(a), 96 Stat. 648, our jurisdiction is limited exclusively to the determination of the tax treatment of partnership items for the partnership year to which the FPAA relates. Se

Because all the partnerships at issue are subject to the provisions enacted in the Tax Equity & Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982 (TEFRA), Pub. L. 97-248, sec. 402(a), 96 Stat. 648, our jurisdiction is limited exclusively to the determination of the tax treatment of partnership items for the partnership year to which the FPAA relates. Se

Because all the partnerships at issue are subject to the provisions enacted in the Tax Equity & Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982 (TEFRA), Pub. L. 97-248, sec. 402(a), 96 Stat. 648, our jurisdiction is limited exclusively to the determination of the tax treatment of partnership items for the partnership year to which the FPAA relates. Se

Because all the partnerships at issue are subject to the provisions enacted in the Tax Equity & Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982 (TEFRA), Pub. L. 97-248, sec. 402(a), 96 Stat. 648, our jurisdiction is limited exclusively to the determination of the tax treatment of partnership items for the partnership year to which the FPAA relates. Se

Because all the partnerships at issue are subject to the provisions enacted in the Tax Equity & Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982 (TEFRA), Pub. L. 97-248, sec. 402(a), 96 Stat. 648, our jurisdiction is limited exclusively to the determination of the tax treatment of partnership items for the partnership year to which the FPAA relates. Se

Because all the partnerships at issue are subject to the provisions enacted in the Tax Equity & Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982 (TEFRA), Pub. L. 97-248, sec. 402(a), 96 Stat. 648, our jurisdiction is limited exclusively to the determination of the tax treatment of partnership items for the partnership year to which the FPAA relates. Se

Because all the partnerships at issue are subject to the provisions enacted in the Tax Equity & Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982 (TEFRA), Pub. L. 97-248, sec. 402(a), 96 Stat. 648, our jurisdiction is limited exclusively to the determination of the tax treatment of partnership items for the partnership year to which the FPAA relates. Se

Because all the partnerships at issue are subject to the provisions enacted in the Tax Equity & Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982 (TEFRA), Pub. L. 97-248, sec. 402(a), 96 Stat. 648, our jurisdiction is limited exclusively to the determination of the tax treatment of partnership items for the partnership year to which the FPAA relates. Se

Because all the partnerships at issue are subject to the provisions enacted in the Tax Equity & Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982 (TEFRA), Pub. L. 97-248, sec. 402(a), 96 Stat. 648, our jurisdiction is limited exclusively to the determination of the tax treatment of partnership items for the partnership year to which the FPAA relates. Se

Because all the partnerships at issue are subject to the provisions enacted in the Tax Equity & Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982 (TEFRA), Pub. L. 97-248, sec. 402(a), 96 Stat. 648, our jurisdiction is limited exclusively to the determination of the tax treatment of partnership items for the partnership year to which the FPAA relates. Se

Because all the partnerships at issue are subject to the provisions enacted in the Tax Equity & Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982 (TEFRA), Pub. L. 97-248, sec. 402(a), 96 Stat. 648, our jurisdiction is limited exclusively to the determination of the tax treatment of partnership items for the partnership year to which the FPAA relates. Se

Because all the partnerships at issue are subject to the provisions enacted in the Tax Equity & Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982 (TEFRA), Pub. L. 97-248, sec. 402(a), 96 Stat. 648, our jurisdiction is limited exclusively to the determination of the tax treatment of partnership items for the partnership year to which the FPAA relates. Se

Because all the partnerships at issue are subject to the provisions enacted in the Tax Equity & Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982 (TEFRA), Pub. L. 97-248, sec. 402(a), 96 Stat. 648, our jurisdiction is limited exclusively to the determination of the tax treatment of partnership items for the partnership year to which the FPAA relates. Se

Because all the partnerships at issue are subject to the provisions enacted in the Tax Equity & Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982 (TEFRA), Pub. L. 97-248, sec. 402(a), 96 Stat. 648, our jurisdiction is limited exclusively to the determination of the tax treatment of partnership items for the partnership year to which the FPAA relates. Se

Because all the partnerships at issue are subject to the provisions enacted in the Tax Equity & Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982 (TEFRA), Pub. L. 97-248, sec. 402(a), 96 Stat. 648, our jurisdiction is limited exclusively to the determination of the tax treatment of partnership items for the partnership year to which the FPAA relates. Se

Because all the partnerships at issue are subject to the provisions enacted in the Tax Equity & Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982 (TEFRA), Pub. L. 97-248, sec. 402(a), 96 Stat. 648, our jurisdiction is limited exclusively to the determination of the tax treatment of partnership items for the partnership year to which the FPAA relates. Se

No notice of final partnership administrative adjustment (FPAA) under section 6226 has been issued to any of the partnerships with respect to taxable year 1990.

No notice of final partnership administrative adjustment (FPAA) under section 6226 has been issued to any of the partnerships with respect to taxable year 1990.

Subsection (a) of section 6226 states in pertinent part: (a) Petition by Tax Matters Partner.--Within 90 days after the day on which a notice of a final partnership administrative adjustment is mailed to the tax matters partner, the tax matters partner may file a petition for a readjustment of the partnership items for such taxable year with-- (1) the Tax Court, Sec

607, 611 (1992) (considering affirmative defense of statute of limitations in a section 6226 partnership case on the same basis as in a deficiency case); Amesbury Apartments, Ltd.

ated to C’s rights, as required by sec. 1.170A-14(g)(2), Income Tax Regs., and the show cause order will be made absolute. Held, further, to the extent that the principle of party presentation applies at all to a partnership proceeding brought under I.R.C. sec. 6226, it gives a court broad latitude to determine partnership items and does not limit the court’s consideration to specific arguments advanced by the parties. - 3 - [*3] Jeffrey H. Paravano, Michelle M. Hervey, and Katherine L. McKnight

The Commissioner also issued an FPAA for Ryder Ranch’s 2007 tax year on December 19, 2018, but that case has not been consolidated here and we therefore cannot determine any partnership items for that year. The fact that the Commissioner never issued an FPAA for 2003 or 2004 indicates that he accepts Ryder Ranch’s partnership returns for

Section 6226 gives us jurisdiction to review the FPAAs in these consoli- dated cases. Pursuant to section 6226(f), we may "determine all partnership items * * * for the partnership taxable year" to which an FPAA relates, the proper allo- cation ofsuch items among the partners, and the applicability ofany penalty, addi- tion to tax, or additional am

Section 6226 gives us jurisdiction to review the FPAAs in these consoli- dated cases. Pursuant to section 6226(f), we may "determine all partnership items * * * for the partnership taxable year" to which an FPAA relates, the proper allo- cation ofsuch items among the partners, and the applicability ofany penalty, addi- tion to tax, or additional am

Section 6226 gives us jurisdiction to review the FPAAs in these consoli- dated cases. Pursuant to section 6226(f), we may "determine all partnership items * * * for the partnership taxable year" to which an FPAA relates, the proper allo- cation ofsuch items among the partners, and the applicability ofany penalty, addi- tion to tax, or additional am

Pursuant to section 6226, petitioner, Charles C.

MEMORANDUMFINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION HALPERN, Judge: These consolidated cases are partnership-level actions based upon petitions filed pursuant to section 6226.2 Jimastowlo Oil, LLC (Jimastowlo), and Oil Coming We Are Humming, LLC (Oil Coming), the two 2Unless otherwise indicated, all section references are to the Internal Revenue Code as amended.

ex Management Corp., the tax matters partner (tmp) of Caltex Oil Venture. (It is the latter entity — Caltex Oil Venture — to which we refer herein as “Caltex”.) This case is a partnership-level action based on a petition filed by the TMP pursuant to section 6226. The matter is currently before the Court on the IRS’s motion for partial summary judgment filed pursuant to Rule 121, which asks us to hold that Caltex is not entitled to deduct the $5,172,666 that it reported in 1999 as nonproductive i

Under section 6226(f), we have jurisdiction in a TEFRA proceeding to "determine all partnership items * * * and the applicability of any penalty,. addition to tax, or additional amount which relates to an adjustment to a partnership item." Since the overvalued distribution was a partnership item, the outside basis of individual partners is of no conseque

6226; see also Randell - 6 - v. United States, 64 F.3d 101, 103 (2d Cir. 1995). In a partnership-level proceeding, the Court's jurisdiction is limited by section 6226(f): SEC. 6226(f). Scope of Judicial Review.--A court with which a petition is filed in accordance with this section shall have jurisdiction to determine all partnership items of

--- MAJORITY --- OPINION Halpern, Judge: These consolidated cases are partnership-level actions based on petitions filed pursuant to section 6226. We have issued a report granting participating partner Arthur M. Winn’s motion for partial summary judgment in docket No. 3162-05, Countryside Ltd. Pship. v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2008-3. Respondent has by two similarly styled motions (Nos. 1 and 2, the motions) moved to compel production of documents in docket No. 3162-05. Petitio

Neither party disputes our jurisdiction over this issue, but we shall examine it nonetheless.- Section 6226 provides in pertinent part: SEC.

- 8 - Under section 6226, the tax matters partner of a partnership may file a petition for a readjustment of the partnership items for such taxable year with the Tax Court, the District Court of the United States for the-district in which the partnership's principal place of business is located, or the Claims Court (now Court of Federal Claims), within 90 days

On May 27, 2003, petitioner filed with the Court a Petition for Readjustment of Partnership Items Under Code Section 6226 praying that the Court: (1) “determine that petitioner filed a partnership return for 1996 which correctly and accurately 5(...continued) respondent to be guaranteed payments.

In docket numbers 7890-00 and 9573-00, petitions were brought under section 6226 by the Tax Matters Partners of two partnerships: Trainer, Wright & Associates (TWA) and Grigoraci, Trainer, Wright & Paterno (GTWP).3 The petitioners in these cases sought readjustment of certain adjustments made by respondent to the partnerships’ 1996 tax returns.

In docket numbers 7890-00 and 9573-00, petitions were brought under section 6226 by the Tax Matters Partners of two partnerships: Trainer, Wright & Associates (TWA) and Grigoraci, Trainer, Wright & Paterno (GTWP).3 The petitioners in these cases sought readjustment of certain adjustments made by respondent to the partnerships' 1996 tax returns.

In docket numbers 7890-00 and 9573-00, petitions were brought under section 6226 by the Tax Matters Partners of two partnerships: Trainer, Wright & Associates (TWA) and Grigoraci, Trainer, Wright & Paterno (GTWP).3 The petitioners in these cases sought readjustment of certain adjustments made by respondent to the partnerships’ 1996 tax returns.

suant to the deficiency procedures contained in sections 6211-6216. Our deficiency procedures do not extend to the adjustment of partnership items or to deficiencies attributable to computational adjustments. We cannot redetermine defi-tiendes under section 6226. See, e.g., Maxwell v. Commissioner, 87 T.C. 783, 787 (1986). Our prior decision in this case, ASA Investerings Pship. v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1998-305, was not a decision which we made under the deficiency procedures. And, deficienc

alleged treatment of petitioner and Justo as partners for employment tax purposes by the IRS. He contends that the Court does not have jurisdiction because the Commissioner did not issue a notice of final partnership administrative adjustment under section 6226. Regardless of the lack of factual support for petitioner’s argument, section 6226 applies only to partnerships having more than 10 partners. Sec. 6231(a)(1)(B). - 12 - Petitioner claims that any 1982 and 1983 income tax liabilities were

--- MAJORITY --- OPINION Ruwe, Judge: This case is a partnership-level action based on a petition filed pursuant to section 6226. Section 6226 is one of a group of provisions concerning the tax treatment of partnership items that was added to the Code by the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982 .(tefra), Pub. L. 97-248, sec. 402(a), 96 Stat. 648 (tefra partnership provisions). The matter before the Court is petitioner’s motion for summary judgment, b

607, 611 (1992) (considering affirmative defense of statute of limitations in a section 6226 partnership case on the same basis as in a deficiency case); Amesbury Apartments, Ltd.

THE SPECIAL TRIAL JUDGE ARMEN, Special Trial Judge: This case is before the Court on respondent's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction. The issue to be decided is whether the petition for readjustment was filed within the period prescribed in section 6226. Background On May 17, 1995, Hoyt and Sons Ranch Properties, Ltd. (the partnership) filed a bankruptcy petition with the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Oregon. On July 17, 1996, respondent issued a notice of final partnership a

- 20 - (A) the period within which a petition for review of a final partnership administrative adjustment under section 6226 may be filed has expired and no such petition has been filed, or (B) the decision of a court in an action begun by such a petition has become final, the partner may elect to have such adjustment, such decision, or a settlement agreement described in paragraph (2) of section 6224(c) with respect to the partnership taxable year to which

In University Heights, we held that, once an S corporation has received a valid FSAA as required by section 6223, and filed a timely petition as required by section 6226 "the scope of our judicial review allows us to determine all subchapter S items of the corporation * * * to which the notice of FSAA relates".

The timeliness of the FPAA is not relevant to the jurisdiction of this Court under section 6226, concerning judicial review of final partnership administrative actions.

lated pursuant to the settlement agreement should be allocated to a limited group of partners. Petitioner contends that any partners who have accepted the out- of-pocket settlement offer from respondent are not parties to this proceeding pursuant to section 6226. Therefore, petitioner - 11 - argues, the Court is prohibited from allocating partnership items to those partners because we do not have jurisdiction to do so. Petitioner also argues that pursuant to section 6231, the partnership items o

lated pursuant to the settlement agreement should be allocated to a limited group of partners. Petitioner contends that any partners who have accepted the out- of-pocket settlement offer from respondent are not parties to this proceeding pursuant to section 6226. Therefore, petitioner argues, the Court is prohibited from allocating partnership items to those partners because we do not have jurisdiction to do so. Petitioner also argues that pursuant to section 6231, the partnership items of the p

lated pursuant to the settlement agreement should be allocated to a limited group of partners. Petitioner contends that any partners who have accepted the out- of-pocket settlement offer from respondent are not parties to this proceeding pursuant to section 6226. Therefore, petitioner - 11 - argues, the Court is prohibited from allocating partnership items to those partners because we do not have jurisdiction to do so. Petitioner also argues that pursuant to section 6231, the partnership items o

lities calculated pursuant to the agreement should be allocated to a limited group of partners. Petitioner contends that any partners who have accepted the out-of-pocket settlement offer from respondent are not parties to this proceeding pursuant to section 6226. Therefore, petitioner - 23 - argues, the Court is prohibited from allocating partnership items to those partners because we do not have jurisdiction to do so. Petitioner also argues that pursuant to section 6231, the partnership items o

lated pursuant to the settlement agreement should be allocated to a limited group of partners. Petitioner contends that any partners who have accepted the out- of-pocket settlement offer from respondent are not parties to this proceeding pursuant to section 6226. Therefore, petitioner argues, the Court is prohibited from allocating partnership items to those partners because we do not have jurisdiction to do so. Petitioner also argues that pursuant to section 6231, the partnership items of the p

lated pursuant to the settlement agreement should be allocated to a limited group of partners. Petitioner contends that any partners who have accepted the out- of-pocket settlement offer from respondent are not parties to this proceeding pursuant to section 6226. Therefore, petitioner argues, the Court is prohibited from allocating partnership items to those partners because we do not have jurisdiction to do so. Petitioner also argues that pursuant to section 6231, the partnership items of the p

lated pursuant to the settlement agreement should be allocated to a limited group of partners. Petitioner contends that any partners who have accepted the out- of-pocket settlement offer from respondent are not parties to this proceeding pursuant to section 6226. Therefore, petitioner argues, the Court is prohibited from allocating partnership items to those partners because we do not have jurisdiction to do so. Petitioner also argues that pursuant to section 6231, the partnership items of the p

lities calculated pursuant to the agreement should be allocated to a limited group of partners. Petitioner contends that any partners who have accepted the out-of-pocket settlement offer from respondent are not parties to this proceeding pursuant to section 6226. Therefore, petitioner - 23 - argues, the Court is prohibited from allocating partnership items to those partners because we do not have jurisdiction to do so. Petitioner also argues that pursuant to section 6231, the partnership items o

See § 6226(f); Woods, 571 U.S. at 39–42. Thus, only JSN’s reliance and actions are relevant for determining reasonable cause in this partnership-level proceeding, and not the actions of JN Investments, which was a partner in JSN and not JSN’s manager at the relevant time. Similarly, Mr. Wingate’s alleged actions are also irrelevant in determining JSN’s

§ 6226(a).5 While section 6226 permitted TEFRA partnerships to seek judicial review of an FPAA, including the applicability of penalties,6 it did not confer a right to a jury trial.

Section 6229(d) provides that the period of limitations with respect to partnership and affected items is suspended for one year after the date that a court decision in a partnership proceeding becomes final.

Section 6226(f), captioned “Scope of judicial review,” defines the limits of our jurisdiction in a TEFRA proceeding such as this. It provides in relevant part that “[a] court with which a petition is filed . . . shall have jurisdiction to determine all partnership items of the partnership for the partnership taxable year to which the [FPAA] relates

4 [*4] Discussion Section 6226(f) grants jurisdiction to the Court “to determine all partnership items of the partnership for the partnership taxable year to which the [FPAA] relates.” Once the Court acquires jurisdiction, its jurisdiction extends to all partnership items for the taxable year.

curacy-related penalties under section 6662 applied to any underpayments of tax attributable to the disallowance. PIMLICO, LLC (PIMLICO or petitioner), a partner other than the tax matters partner of PICCIRC, timely filed a Petition for review under section 6226. We sustain respondent’s determinations concerning the loss deductions and penalties, as set forth below. FINDINGS OF FACT Some of the facts are stipulated and are so found. The Stipulation of Facts and its Exhibits are incorporated here

The determination of a partnership’s proper taxable year is a partnership item. Treas. Reg. § 301.6231(a)(3)-1(b); see § 6231(a)(3) (defining a partnership item). Thus, the proper beginning and ending dates of a partnership’s taxable year are partnership items to be determined in a partnership proceeding where the FPAA places the start d

Because 23rd Chelsea’s TMP filed the Petition for readjustment of partnership items within 90 days of the Commissioner’s FPAA, we have jurisdiction under section 6226(f) to determine all of 23rd Chelsea’s “partnership items” for tax year 2009.

ions under section 6662(b)(1); and (2) a substantial understatement of income tax under section 6662(b)(2). Petitioner timely filed a Petition with this Court on June 22, 2017, disputing the FPAA and seeking readjustments of partnership items under section 6226. On August 11, 2022, respondent filed a Motion for Partial Summary Judgment seeking favorable adjudication on the issue of whether he complied with the written supervisory approval requirement of section 6751(b)(1) for the penalties asser

which relates to an adjustment to a partnership item.” Treasury Regulation § 301.6221-1(c) further provides that “[p]artnership-level determinations include all the legal and factual determinations that underlie the determination of any penalty .

which relates to an adjustment to a partnership item.” Treasury Regulation § 301.6221-1(c) further provides that “[p]artnership-level determinations include all the legal and factual determinations that underlie the determination of any penalty .

The Commissioner also issued an FPAA for Ryder Ranch’s 2007 tax year on December 19, 2018, but that case has not been consolidated here and we therefore cannot determine any partnership items for that year. The fact that the Commissioner never issued an FPAA for 2003 or 2004 indicates that he accepts Ryder Ranch’s partnership returns for

The Commissioner also issued an FPAA for Ryder Ranch’s 2007 tax year on December 19, 2018, but that case has not been consolidated here and we therefore cannot determine any partnership items for that year. The fact that the Commissioner never issued an FPAA for 2003 or 2004 indicates that he accepts Ryder Ranch’s partnership returns for

The Commissioner also issued an FPAA for Ryder Ranch’s 2007 tax year on December 19, 2018, but that case has not been consolidated here and we therefore cannot determine any partnership items for that year. The fact that the Commissioner never issued an FPAA for 2003 or 2004 indicates that he accepts Ryder Ranch’s partnership returns for

The Commissioner also issued an FPAA for Ryder Ranch’s 2007 tax year on December 19, 2018, but that case has not been consolidated here and we therefore cannot determine any partnership items for that year. The fact that the Commissioner never issued an FPAA for 2003 or 2004 indicates that he accepts Ryder Ranch’s partnership returns for

0% "gross valuation misstatement" penalty under section 6662(h) and (in the alternative) a 20% accuracy-related penalty under other provisions ofsec- tion 6662(a). Petitioner timely petitioned this Court for readjustment ofthe partnership items, see sec. 6226(f), and the parties filed cross-motions for partial summary judgment. Respondent contends that the charitable contribution deduction was properly disallowed for two independently sufficient reasons. First, he contends that the conservation

racy-related penalty under section 6662(h) (applicable in the case ofa "gross valuation misstatement") and in the alternative a 20% penalty under other provisions ofsection 6662. Petitionertimely petitioned for readjustment ofpartnership items under section 6226. Discussion A. Summary Judgment Standard The purpose ofsummaryjudgment is to expedite litigation and avoid costly, unnecessary, and time-consuming trials. See FPL Grp., Inc. & Subs. v. Commis- sioner, 116 T.C. 73, 74 (2001). We may grant

In Woods, the Supreme Court considered the phrase "any penalty * * * which relates to an adjustment to a partnership item" (in section 6226(f)), which is nearly identical to the pertinent text ofsection 6230(a)(2)(A)(i).

0% "gross valuation misstatement" penalty under section 6662(h) and (in the alternative) a 20% accuracy-related penalty under other pro- visions ofsection 6662(a). Petitioner timely petitioned this Court for readjustment ofthe partnership items, see sec. 6226(f), and the parties filed cross-motions for partial summary judgment. Respondent contends that the charitable contribution deduction was properly disallowed for two independently sufficient reasons. First, he contends that the conservation

40% "gross valuation misstatement" penalty under section 6662(h) and (in the alternative) a 20% accuracy-related penalty under other provisions ofsection 6662(a). Petitioner timely petitioned this Court for readjustment ofthe partnership items, see sec. 6226(f), and the parties filed cross-motions for partial summary judgment. Respondent contends that the charitable contribution deduction was properly disallowed for two independently sufficient reasons. First, he contends that the conservation

40% "gross valuation misstatement" penalty under section 6662(h) and (in the alternative) a 20% accuracy-related penalty under other provisions ofsection 6662(a). Petitioner timely petitioned this Court for readjustment ofthe partnership items, see sec. 6226(f), and the parties filed cross-motions for partial summary judgment. Respondent contends that the charitable contribution deduction was properly disallowed for two independently sufficient reasons. First, he contends that the conservation

In Woods, the Supreme Court considered the phrase "any penalty * * * which relates to an adjustment to a partnership item" (in section 6226(f)), which is nearly identical to the pertinent text ofsection 6230(a)(2)(A)(i).

stments * * * Woods, 571 U.S. at 39 (citations omitted). The Supreme Court went on to explain that courts in partnership-level proceedings havejurisdiction to determine the applicability ofany penalty that "relates to" a partnership item. R (quoting section 6226(f)). Thus, the question - 13 - [*13] the Supreme Court was deciding in Woods was "whether the valuation- misstatementpenalty 'relates to' the determination that the partnerships * * * were shams." R In answering this question in the affi

y-related penalty under section 6662(h) (applicable in the case ofa "gross valuation misstatement") and in the alternative a 20% penalty under other provisions ofsection 6662. Petitioner time- ly petitioned for readjustment ofpartnership items under section 6226. See sec. 6226(a), (d). F. Questions Presented In August 2018 respondent moved for partial summaryjudgment, and sever- al rounds ofbriefing ensued. Respondent urges that the charitable contribution deduction should be disallowed as a mat

Williams' and NutraTech's Schedule F activities during the years at issue constituted activities not engaged in for profit within the meaning of section 183 and 3Partnership provisions ofthe Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982 (TEFRA), Pub.

Jurisdiction Section 6226(f) grants this Courtjurisdiction to "determine all partnership items * * * for the partnership taxable year" to which an FPAA relates, including the proper allocation ofsuch items among the partners and the applicability ofany penalty that "relates to an adjustment to a partnership item." A "partnership item" means an "item required to

- 34 - [*34] This Court generally hasjurisdiction over a partnership-level case under section 6226 if: (1) the IRS issues a valid FPAA and (2) the TMP or another eli- gible partner timely files a petition with this Court relating to the FPAA.

MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION GOEKE, Judge:2 These cases concern two petitions for adjustment of partnership items under section 6226.3 They involve two partnerships, their partners, and investors in essentially "cookie cutter" distressed asset debt (DAD) tax shelter investments similar to those addressed in Superior Trading, LLC v.

- 34 - [*34] This Court generally hasjurisdiction over a partnership-level case under section 6226 if: (1) the IRS issues a valid FPAA and (2) the TMP or another eli- gible partner timely files a petition with this Court relating to the FPAA.

6226(f); United States v. Woods, 571 U.S. 31, 41 (2013). ¹³8Sec. 6662(c); Higbee v. Commissioner, 116 T.C. 438, 448 (2001). -112- [*112] attributable to negligence.¹³° Disregard ofrules or regulations is careless if the taxpayer does not exercise reasonable diligence to determine the correctness of a return position that is contrary to the ru

Accuracy-Related Penalties Section 6221 provides that the applicability ofany penalty that relates to an adjustment to a partnership item is determined at the partnership level.63 The determination ofpartnership items in a partnership-level proceeding is 6¹(...continued) 19, at *33.

Ifthe tax matters partner files a petition for readjustment ofpartnership items under section 6226, the section 6229(a) period remains suspended during the resulting court proceedings and for one year after the court's decision becomes final.

- 34 - [*34] This Court generally hasjurisdiction over a partnership-level case under section 6226 if: (1) the IRS issues a valid FPAA and (2) the TMP or another eli- gible partner timely files a petition with this Court relating to the FPAA.

Jurisdiction Section 6226(f) grants this Courtjurisdiction to "determine all partnership items * * * for the partnership taxable year" to which an FPAA relates, including the proper allocation ofsuch items among the partners and the applicability ofany penalty that "relates to an adjustment to a partnership item." A "partnership item" means an "item required to

Jurisdiction Section 6226(f) grants this Courtjurisdiction to "determine all partnership items * * * for the partnership taxable year" to which an FPAA relates, including the proper allocation ofsuch items among the partners and the applicability ofany penalty that "relates to an adjustment to a partnership item." A "partnership item" means an "item required to

- 34 - [*34] This Court generally hasjurisdiction over a partnership-level case under section 6226 if: (1) the IRS issues a valid FPAA and (2) the TMP or another eli- gible partner timely files a petition with this Court relating to the FPAA.

6226(f); United States v. Woods, 571 U.S. 31, 41 (2013). ¹³8Sec. 6662(c); Higbee v. Commissioner, 116 T.C. 438, 448 (2001). -112- [*112] attributable to negligence.¹³° Disregard ofrules or regulations is careless if the taxpayer does not exercise reasonable diligence to determine the correctness of a return position that is contrary to the ru

Jurisdiction Section 6226(f) grants this Courtjurisdiction to "determine all partnership items * * * for the partnership taxable year" to which an FPAA relates, including the proper allocation ofsuch items among the partners and the applicability ofany penalty that "relates to an adjustment to a partnership item." A "partnership item" means an "item required to

- 34 - [*34] This Court generally hasjurisdiction over a partnership-level case under section 6226 if: (1) the IRS issues a valid FPAA and (2) the TMP or another eli- gible partner timely files a petition with this Court relating to the FPAA.

Jurisdiction Section 6226(f) grants this Courtjurisdiction to "determine all partnership items * * * for the partnership taxable year" to which an FPAA relates, including the proper allocation ofsuch items among the partners and the applicability ofany penalty that "relates to an adjustment to a partnership item." A "partnership item" means an "item required to

- 34 - [*34] This Court generally hasjurisdiction over a partnership-level case under section 6226 if: (1) the IRS issues a valid FPAA and (2) the TMP or another eli- gible partner timely files a petition with this Court relating to the FPAA.

- 34 - [*34] This Court generally hasjurisdiction over a partnership-level case under section 6226 if: (1) the IRS issues a valid FPAA and (2) the TMP or another eli- gible partner timely files a petition with this Court relating to the FPAA.

- 34 - [*34] This Court generally hasjurisdiction over a partnership-level case under section 6226 if: (1) the IRS issues a valid FPAA and (2) the TMP or another eli- gible partner timely files a petition with this Court relating to the FPAA.

- 34 - [*34] This Court generally hasjurisdiction over a partnership-level case under section 6226 if: (1) the IRS issues a valid FPAA and (2) the TMP or another eli- gible partner timely files a petition with this Court relating to the FPAA.

Jurisdiction Section 6226(f) grants this Courtjurisdiction to "determine all partnership items * * * for the partnership taxable year" to which an FPAA relates, including the proper allocation ofsuch items among the partners and the applicability ofany penalty that "relates to an adjustment to a partnership item." A "partnership item" means an "item required to

MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION GOEKE, Judge:2 These cases concern two petitions for adjustment of partnership items under section 6226.3 They involve two partnerships, their partners, and investors in essentially "cookie cutter" distressed asset debt (DAD) tax shelter investments similar to those addressed in Superior Trading, LLC v.

le-cause-and-good-faith defense, let us build the form. I. TEFRA and Penalties We havejurisdiction in a TEFRA proceeding to determine partnership items and "the applicability ofany penalty * * * which relates to an adjustment to a partnership item." Sec. 6226(f); Woods, 571 U.S. at 39. The Supreme Court has held: "TEFRA gives courts in partnership-level proceedingsjurisdiction to determine the applicability ofany penalty that could result from an adjustment to a partnership item, even ifimposing

Williams' and NutraTech's Schedule F activities during the years at issue constituted activities not engaged in for profit within the meaning of section 183 and 3Partnership provisions ofthe Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982 (TEFRA), Pub.

Jurisdiction Section 6226(f) grants this Courtjurisdiction to "determine all partnership items * * * for the partnership taxable year" to which an FPAA relates, including the proper allocation ofsuch items among the partners and the applicability ofany penalty that "relates to an adjustment to a partnership item." A "partnership item" means an "item required to

OPINION In this proceeding, we review under section 6226 respondent's adjustments to SLRD's 2012 partnership return.° The Commissioner's adjustments in an FPAA are generally presumed correct, and the taxpayerbears the burden of proving those adjustments erroneous.

- 34 - [*34] This Court generally hasjurisdiction over a partnership-level case under section 6226 if: (1) the IRS issues a valid FPAA and (2) the TMP or another eli- gible partner timely files a petition with this Court relating to the FPAA.

- 34 - [*34] This Court generally hasjurisdiction over a partnership-level case under section 6226 if: (1) the IRS issues a valid FPAA and (2) the TMP or another eli- gible partner timely files a petition with this Court relating to the FPAA.

ross valuation misstatement" penalty under section 6662(a) and (h) or, in the alternative, a 20% accuracy-related penalty under section 6662(a). In September 2014 petitioner timely petitioned this Court for readjustment ofthe partnership items under section 6226. Three months later LPCI filed a Form 990 for its FYE 2014. This return referred to the 2005 facade easement, identified LLC as the donor, and stated that no goods or services had been furnished to LLC in exchange for that gift. - 7 - [*

, for the taxable year 2007 ofRW Management, Ltd. (RWM), and imposed an accuracy-relatedpenalty under section 6662. On August 27, 2013, JRW Management LLC, the tax matters partner for RWM, filed a petition for readjustment ofpartnership items under section 6226. These cases were consolidated for trial, briefing, and opinion. After concessions by Edwin and Mary Watts, the following issues remain for decision: ¹Unless otherwise indicated, all section references are to the Internal Revenue Code (Co

6226(f) (emphasis added). So what are partnership items? Section 6231(a)(3) says that: - 34 - [*34] [t]he term "partnership item" means, with respect to a partnership, any item required to be taken into account for the partnership's taxable year under any provision of subtitle A to the extent regulations prescribed by the Secretary provide th

, for the taxable year 2007 ofRW Management, Ltd. (RWM), and imposed an accuracy-relatedpenalty under section 6662. On August 27, 2013, JRW Management LLC, the tax matters partner for RWM, filed a petition for readjustment ofpartnership items under section 6226. These cases were consolidated for trial, briefing, and opinion. After concessions by Edwin and Mary Watts, the following issues remain for decision: ¹Unless otherwise indicated, all section references are to the Internal Revenue Code (Co

6226(f) provides that in a TEFRA proceeding we havejurisdiction to determine all partnership items ofthe partnership for the partnership tax yearto which a notice offinal partnership administrative adjustment relates, including the proper allocation ofsuch items among the partners, penalties, additions to tax, or other

6226(f) provides that in a TEFRA proceeding we havejurisdiction to determine all partnership items ofthe partnership for the partnership tax yearto which a notice offinal partnership administrative adjustment relates, including the proper allocation ofsuch items among the partners, penalties, additions to tax, or other

o effect this change, Congress amended several TEFRA provisions to expand the scope ofTEFRA to include "the applicability ofany penalty, addition to tax, or additional amount which relates to an adjustment to a partnership item". Sec. 6221; see also sec. 6226(f) (expanding a court's jurisdiction in a TEFRA proceeding to include penalties). Most pertinent here, Congress amended section 6230(a), which related to the interplay between deficiency procedures and TEFRA proceedings. Generally, deficien

6226(f) (emphasis added). So what are partnership items? Section 6231(a)(3) says that: - 34 - [*34] [t]he term "partnership item" means, with respect to a partnership, any item required to be taken into account for the partnership's taxable year under any provision of subtitle A to the extent regulations prescribed by the Secretary provide th

In the case ofa petition under section 6226, 6228(a), 6247, or 6252, the proper venue for appeals is the Court of Appeals for the circuit in which a partnership has its principal place ofbusiness.

In the case ofa petition under section 6226, 6228(a), 6247, or 6252, the proper venue for appeals is the Court of Appeals for the circuit in which a partnership has its principal place ofbusiness.

In the case ofa petition under section 6226, 6228(a), 6247, or 6252, the proper venue for appeals is the Court of Appeals for the circuit in which a partnership has its principal place ofbusiness.

Property Ownership History In June 1997 RP Golfacquired a substantial portion ofthe land that makes up the current golfcourse development on which the conservation easement at issue is located. The golfcourse property formerly known as Windbrook Properties (Windbrook Properties) was conveyed to RP Golfby a trustee's deed that included

Guaranteed payments are a partnership item that must be determined at the partnership level in a proceeding brought under section 6226(f), such as this one.

On May 13, 2011, petitioner filed a timely petition pursuantto section 6226¹ for readjustment ofrespondent's determinations in the FPAA.

Alternatively, should the focus be on the defunct petitioner LLC for purposes ofdetermining appellate venue, it is arguable that, because (1) an LLC has a principal place ofbusiness (not a legal residence) and (2) this case did not commence with a "petition under section 6226, 6228(a), 6247, or 6252", sec.

S_ee section 6226(f) (giving the Courtjurisdiction to determine "the applicability ofany penalty, addition to tax, or additional amount which relates to an adjustment to a partnership item" for taxable years ending after August 5, 1997). No further partner-level determinations were required in that instance. The Supreme Court recently addressedthis same

S_ee section 6226(f) (giving the Courtjurisdiction to determine "the applicability ofany penalty, addition to tax, or additional amount which relates to an adjustment to a partnership item" for taxable years ending after August 5, 1997). No further partner-level determinations were required in that instance. The Supreme Court recently addressedthis same

S_ee section 6226(f) (giving the Courtjurisdiction to determine "the applicability ofany penalty, addition to tax, or additional amount which relates to an adjustment to a partnership item" for taxable years ending after August 5, 1997). No further partner-level determinations were required in that instance. The Supreme Court recently addressedthis same

So ourjurisdiction in this case is not dependent on the distinction between partnership and nonpartnership items for purposes of section 6226(f) because MC Investments had only three partners: Brenview, Cumberdale, and Markell.

Petitioner filed a timelypetition for readjustment under section 6226 regarding the FPAA for tax year 2005.

S_ee section 6226(f) (giving the Courtjurisdiction to determine "the applicability ofany penalty, addition to tax, or additional amount which relates to an adjustment to a partnership item" for taxable years ending after August 5, 1997). No further partner-level determinations were required in that instance. The Supreme Court recently addressedthis same

enalty in this case. However, section 7491(c) is not as clear as petitioner states. It is not entirely instructive whetherthat section imposes the initial burden on the Commissioner when the taxpayer is an entity that has petitioned this Court under section 6226. By its terms, section 7491(c) applies only to the liability of"any individual" for penalties.¹³ See Santa Monica Pictures, LLC v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2005-104 ("Plainly, by using the different ¹³In contrast, sec. 7491(a), which pro

S_ee section 6226(f) (giving the Courtjurisdiction to determine "the applicability ofany penalty, addition to tax, or additional amount which relates to an adjustment to a partnership item" for taxable years ending after August 5, 1997). No further partner-level determinations were required in that instance. The Supreme Court recently addressedthis same

S_ee section 6226(f) (giving the Courtjurisdiction to determine "the applicability ofany penalty, addition to tax, or additional amount which relates to an adjustment to a partnership item" for taxable years ending after August 5, 1997). No further partner-level determinations were required in that instance. The Supreme Court recently addressedthis same

S_ee section 6226(f) (giving the Courtjurisdiction to determine "the applicability ofany penalty, addition to tax, or additional amount which relates to an adjustment to a partnership item" for taxable years ending after August 5, 1997). No further partner-level determinations were required in that instance. The Supreme Court recently addressedthis same

The assessmentperiod may be extended as to a deficiency attributable to a partnership item, for example, ifan FPAA is mailed to a TMP and an action is begun under section 6226.7 See sec.

S_ee section 6226(f) (giving the Courtjurisdiction to determine "the applicability ofany penalty, addition to tax, or additional amount which relates to an adjustment to a partnership item" for taxable years ending after August 5, 1997). No further partner-level determinations were required in that instance. The Supreme Court recently addressedthis same

S_ee section 6226(f) (giving the Courtjurisdiction to determine "the applicability ofany penalty, addition to tax, or additional amount which relates to an adjustment to a partnership item" for taxable years ending after August 5, 1997). No further partner-level determinations were required in that instance. The Supreme Court recently addressedthis same

6226(f) (giving the Court jurisdiction to determine “the applicability of any penalty, addition to tax, or additional amount which relates to an adjustment to a partnership item” for taxable years ending after August 5, 1997). No further partner-level determinations were required in that instance. The Supreme Court recently addressed this same

The determinations of partnership items in partnership-level proceedings are binding on the partners and may not be challenged in subsequent partner-level proceedings. See secs. 6230(c)(4), 7422(h). Paris, J., agrees with this concurring opinion. The Court of Appeals found that because we had only partially dismissed the Bedrosians’ peti

6226(f)(emnhasis added). So what are partnership items? Section 6231(a)(3) says that [t]he term "partnership item" means, with respect to apartnership, any item requir d to be taken into accountfor thepartnership's taxable year under any provision ofsubtitle A to the extent regulations prescribed by the Secretary provide that, for purposes oft

es that "Notwithstandingthe provisions of * * * [section 7482(b)(1)], such decisions may be reviewed by any United States Court ofAppeals which may be designated by the Secretary and the taxpayerby stipulation in writing." Not only have the parties not established where AHG Investment's principal place ofbusiness was at the time the petition under section 6226 was filed; it was not established whether AHG Investments had a principal place ofbusiness at that time.

6226(f)(emnhasis added). So what are partnership items? Section 6231(a)(3) says that [t]he term "partnership item" means, with respect to apartnership, any item requir d to be taken into accountfor thepartnership's taxable year under any provision ofsubtitle A to the extent regulations prescribed by the Secretary provide that, for purposes oft

6226(f)(emnhasis added). So what are partnership items? Section 6231(a)(3) says that [t]he term "partnership item" means, with respect to apartnership, any item requir d to be taken into accountfor thepartnership's taxable year under any provision ofsubtitle A to the extent regulations prescribed by the Secretary provide that, for purposes oft

On August 15, 2007, Balazs Ventures, a partner other than the TMP, timely filed a Petition For Readjustment of Partnership Items Under Code Section 6226, on behalfofGaughfProperties contesting the FPAA.

oses Respondent determined in the FPAA that SAS should be disregarded for tax purposes.28 The existence ofa valid partnership is a partnership item. Petaluma FX Although it is a partner that files a petition for readjustment ofpartnership items, see sec. 6226, in the case ofa petition under sec. 6226 the proper venue for appeal is the Court ofAppeals for the circuit in which is located the partnership's principal place ofbusiness at the time the petition is filed. Sec. 7482(b)(1)(E). Because SAS

On August 15, 2007, Balazs Ventures, a partner other than the TMP, timely filed a Petition for Readjustment of Partnership Items Under Code Section 6226, on behalf of Gaughf Properties contesting the fpaa.

6226; see also Randell v. United States, supra at 103. .The determination of partnership items in a partnership-level proceeding is binding on the partners and may not be challenged in a subsequent partner-level proceeding. See secs. 6230(c) (4), 7422 (h). This precludes- the Government from relitigating the same issues with each of the partne

of an FPAA suspends the running of any applicable limitations period for the period during which an- action may be brought under section 6226 or, if a petition i s filed under section 6226, until the decision of the court becomes 16 - final, and for 1 year thereafter .

Furthermore, if a notice of a final partnership administrative adjustment (FPAA) is mailed to the tax matters partner, the running of the period specified in section 6229(a) is suspended for the period during which a court action may be brought under section 6226 (and if a petition is filed as a result of the FPAA, until the decision of the court becomes final) and for 1 year thereafter .

Smith timely filed a petition for it review in this Court under section 6226 (the Greenwich :f lit igation) In the Greenwich litigation Greenwich was represented by HenrygG .

sion Petitioner's motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction focuses on whether respondent's determinations in the FPAA relating to the landfill rights and nonconventional fuel credits are partnership items within the scope of our jurisdiction under section 6226(f) . If we find that these determinations are partnership items, then we must deny petitioner's motion . We begin our analysis with a discussion of our jurisdiction over a TEFRA partnership-level proceeding . This Court is,a court of lim

Furthermore, if an FPAA is mailed to the tax matters partner, the running of the period specified in section 6229(a) is suspended for the period during .which a court action may be brought under section 6226 (and if a petition is filed as .a result of the FPAA, until the decision of the court becomes final) and for 1 year thereafter .

mels claimed , on . their return . Respondent also determined that the accuracy-related penalty under section .6662 should be imposed . On March 20, 2006 ; : petitioner,timely filed a petition for readjustment of partnership items and penalty under section 6226 . Petitioner contends-that respondent's proposed adjustments are incorrect, that Palm Canyon correctly reported all items of income, loss, basis, and ..contributions to capital on its return, and that none of respondent's alternative dete

6226 ; see also Randell v. United States , supra at 103 . The determination of partnership - 23 - items in a, partnership-level proceeding is binding on th e partners and may not be challenged in a subsequent partner-level proceeding. See secs . 6230(c)(4), 7422(h) . This precludes the Government from relitigating the same issues with each of

See also- Lardas v .

Section 6229 (d) provides that if an FPAA is issued with respect to a taxable year, the period for assessing t x under section 6229(a) (as modified by other provisions such as section 6229 ( c)(2)) is .

Section 6229(d) provides that if an FPAA is issued with respect to a taxable year, the period for assessing tax under section 6229(a) (as modified by other provisions such as section 6229(c)(2)) is suspended for the period during which an action may be brought under section 6226 and, if a petition is filed with respect to the FPAA, until the decision of the court becomes final, plus 1 year thereafter.

tnership administrative adjustment with respect to any taxable year is mailed to the tax matters partner, the running of the period specified in subsection (a) * * * shall be suspended-- (1) for the period during which an action may be brought under section 6226 (and, if a petition is filed under section 6226 with respect to such administrative adjustment, until the decision of the court becomes final), and (2) for 1 year thereafter.

No partnership proceeding has yet been commenced under Section 6226, much less concluded .

otice of final partnership administrative adjustment (FPAA) to the partners of Stone Canyon for 1999 . Neither the tax matters partner (TMP) JCB, nor any notice partner filed a challenge to the FPAA before the expiration of the periods prescribed in section 6226 . Eleven days after the FPAA was issued, respondent issued petitioners a statutory notice of deficiency for 1999 and 2000 . Petitioners timely petitioned the Court to review the notice of deficiency . That case is docket No . 12341-05 .

plaint was designated civil case No. 93-CV-194-HRW in the District Court and was assigned to District Court Judge Henry Wilhoit. Mr. Greer’s complaint sought the refund of the $189,769, plus interest, and alleged as one of the jurisdictional grounds section 6226. The United States in seeking to dismiss Mr. Greer’s complaint asserted that no assessment of the $189,769 was permitted under section 6225(a)(2). On September 21, 1994, the District Court entered the following order (the Order): This ma

No partnership proceeding has yet been commenced under Section 6226, much less concluded.

— If notice of a final partnership administrative adjustment with respect to any taxable year is mailed to the tax matters partner, the running of the period specified in subsection (a) * * * shall be suspended— (1) for the period during which an action may be brought under section 6226 (and, if a petition is filed under section 6226 with respect to such administrative adjustment, until the decision of the court becomes final), and (2) for 1 year thereafter.

2001-85.4 If the Commissioner issues a timely FPAA to the taxpayer, the period of limitation is suspended “for the period during which an action may be brought under section 6226 (and, if a petition is filed under section 6226 with respect to such administrative adjustment, until the decision of the court becomes final), and * * * for 1 year thereafter.” Sec.

tment of $100,661 with respect to the ordinary income of P.K. Ventures I Limited Partnership (PKVI LP) for 1991. Robert L. Rose (Rose), the designated tax matters partner for PKVI LP, filed a Petition for Readjustment of Partnership Items Under Code Section 6226. Respondent determined deficiencies, an addition to tax, and penalties with respect to the Federal income taxes for petitioners Robert L. and Alice N. Rose (the Roses) for 1990, 1991, 1992, 1993, 1994, and 1995 as follows: Addition to Ta

6226; Rule 240(c); see also Meserve Drilling Partners v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1996-72, affd. 152 F.3d 1181 (9th Cir. 1998). The Court has jurisdiction in such a proceeding to determine partnership items to which the FPAA relates, the proper allocation of those items among the partners, and the applicability of any penalty, addition to tax,

for the partnership taxable years at issue.186 Conceivably, our decision might influence SMP’s reporting for subsequent taxable years, but beyond this “in terrorem” effect, it is unclear what impact such a decision would 185 A final regulation under sec. 6226 was promulgated effective for partnership taxable years beginning on or after Oct. 4, 2001. Sec. 301.6226(f)-1(c), Proced. & Admin. Regs. 186 Unlike River City Ranches #1 Ltd. v. Commissioner, 401 F.3d 1136 (9th Cir. 2005), affg. in part, r

Forsythe, - 8 - and, therefore, none of the liability was allocable to Indeck Overseas.4 On September 11, 2002, petitioner filed a Petition for Readjustment of Partnership Items Under Code Section 6226 with the Court for a redetermination of the adjustments set forth in the FPAA.

MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION LARO, Judge: Petitioner petitioned the Court under section 6226 to readjust partnership items adjusted by respondent.

On September 11, 2002, petitioner filed a Petition for Readjustment of Partnership Items Under Code Section 6226 with the Court for a redetermination of the adjustments set forth in the FPAA.

The period is suspended - 37 - following the mailing to the tax matters partner of an FPAA during the period under section 6226 for partners to challenge the adjustment (150 days), and for 1 year thereafter.

_ 9 _ computational adjustments.¹° We cannot redetermine deficiencies under section 6226.¹¹ See, e.g., Maxwell v.

deficiency in petitioners’ Federal income tax for 1996 resulted from the adjustments respondent made in the FPAA issued to RPT PRN LLC. At the partnership level this Court’s review of the Commissioner’s adjustment of partnership items is governed by section 6226. Maxwell v. Commissioner, supra at 788. Under section 6231(a)(5) an “affected item” is defined as “any item to the extent such item is affected by a partnership item.” Additions to tax under section 6662(a) are analyzed as “affected item

The period is suspended following the mailing to the tax matters partner of an FPAA during the period under section 6226 for partners to challenge the adjustment (150 days), and for 1 year thereafter.

h year (without regard to extensions). Sec. 6229(d) provides that the mailing of a notice of final partnership administrative adjustment suspends the running of the 3-year limitations period for the period during which an action may be brought under sec. 6226 (and, if an action is brought, until the decision of the court has become final) and for 1 year thereafter. The record in this case reflects, and the Court so finds, that a notice of final partnership administrative adjustment for Blythe II

Nathan Lewin (petitioner), a partner other than the tax matters partner, filed a petition for readjustment of partnership - 2 - items under Code section 6226.1 After concessions,2 the issues for decision are: (1) Whether I-Tech is entitled to deduct research or experimental expenses of $2,591,225, $2,834,032, and $1,497,317 under section 174 in its tax years 1984 through 1986, respectively; and (2) whether I-Tech is precluded from deducting guaranteed payments of $79,867, $179,501, and $91,

ect to any taxable year is mailed to the tax matters partner, the running of the period specified in subsection (a) (as modified by other provisions of this section) shall be suspended-- (1) for the period during which an action may be brought under section 6226 (and, if a petition is filed under section 6226 with respect to such administrative adjustment, until the decision of the court becomes final), and (2) for 1 year thereafter.

trative Adjustment (FPAA) for 1990 for CC&F Western Operations Limited Partnership (Western). CC&F Investors, Inc. (petitioner), the designated tax matters partner for Western, filed a Petition for Readjustment of Partnership - 2 - Items Under Code Section 6226. After concessions, the sole remaining issue is whether disclosures made in the 1990 Federal income tax returns of Western and of partnerships in which Western owned interests were adequate to apprise respondent of the nature and amount o

September 3, 1982, the tax treatment of any partnership item generally is determined in a single proceeding at the partnership level. See Sparks v. Commissioner, 87 T.C. 1279, 1284 (1986); Maxwell v. Commissioner, 87 T.C. 783, 789 (1986); see also sec. 6226(f). Partnership items include each partner's proportionate share of the partnership's aggregate items of income, gain, loss, deduction, or credit. See sec. 6231(a)(3); sec. 301.6231(a)(3)-1(a)(1)(i), Proced. & Admin. Regs. - 6 - Partnership

However, if an FPAA is issued before the end of the 3-year period of limitations of section 6229(a), that period is suspended for the time during which a partnership-level proceeding may be brought under section 6226 and, if such a proceeding is timely brought, until a decision in that proceeding becomes final, and for 1 year thereafter.

However, if an FPAA is issued before the end of the 3-year period of limitations of section 6229(a), that period is suspended for the time during which a partnership-level proceeding may be brought under section 6226 and, if such a proceeding is timely brought, until a decision in that proceeding becomes final, and for 1 year thereafter.

Section 6226(f), which governs judicial review of adjustments to partnership items, grants jurisdiction over all partnership items and the proper allocation of the partnership items among the partners to the Court in which a petition is filed with respect to the FPAA. Our jurisdiction for the instant proceeding is based on the issuance of a notice

decision dismissing a proceeding for lack of jurisdiction) shall be held to be rendered upon the date that an order specifying the amount of the deficiency is entered in the records of the Tax Court or, in the case of a declaratory judgment proceeding under part IV of this subchapter, or under section 7428 or in the case of an action brought under section 6226 or section 6228(a), the date of the court's order entering the decision.

the partnership return for such year was filed or (2) the last day for filing such return for such year (without regard to extensions).3 However, section 6229(d) provides that the mailing of a final partnership administrative adjustment suspends the running of the 3-year limitations period for the period during which an action may be brought under section 6226 (and, if an action is brought, until the decision of the court has become final) and for 1 year thereafter.

(My Hat or petitioner), Tax Matters Partner, petitioned the Court under section 6226 to readjust respondent's adjustments of partnership items flowing from the partnership.

(Southampton), Tax Matters Partner, petitioned the Court under section 6226 to readjust respondent's adjustments of partnership items flowing from the partnership.

Section 6226(f), which governs judicial review of adjustments to partnership items, grants jurisdiction over all partnership items and the proper allocation of the partnership items among the partners to the Court in which a petition is filed with respect to the FPAA. Our jurisdiction for the instant proceeding is based on the issuance of a notice

ility arises, (C) in the case of a person seeking a declaratory decision under section 7476, the principal place of business, or principal office or agency of the employer, (D) in the case of an organization seeking a declaratory decision under section 7428, the principal office or agency of the organization, or (E) in the case of a petition under section 6226 or 6228(a), the principal place of business of the partnership.

This argument is predicated upon petitioner's belief that if the petition in the Lax case was not filed in accord with section 6226, then the Lax case should have been dismissed for lack of jurisdiction and the period for assessment expired 1 year and 150 days after the mailing of the FPAA's because "no action was brought" sufficient to suspend the assessment period within the meaning of section 6229(d).

However, under section 6229(d), if a notice of FPAA is mailed to the tax matters partner: the running of the period specified in subsection (a) (as modified by other provisions of this section) shall be suspended-- (1) for the period during which an action may be brought under section 6226 (and, if an action with respect to such administrative adjustment is brought during such period, until the decision of the court in such action becomes final), and (2) for 1 year thereafter.

6226; Rule 240(c). If the FPAA is not valid, we lack subject matter jurisdiction. Clovis I v. Commissioner, 88 T.C. 980 (1987); Maxwell v. Commissioner, 87 T.C. 783, 788-789 (1986). At a minimum, the FPAA must give notice to the taxpayer that the Commissioner has finally determined adjustments to the partnership return. Chomp Associates v. Com

The Affected Items Proceeding On August 26, 1994, respondent mailed petitioner a notice of deficiency in which she determined that, for 1982, petitioner was liable for (1) additions to tax for negligence under sections 6653(a)(1) and 6653(a)(2), and (2) an addition to tax for a substantial understatement of income tax under section 66

If the petition for readjustment is not filed by the tax matters partner within 90 days or by a notice partner within 60 days after the expiration of the 90-day period, as required by section 6226, then this Court lacks jurisdiction to readjust any of the adjustments determined by respondent in the notice of FPAA, and the petition must be dismissed.

648) and section 6226 respondent will be able-- and indeed obliged--to treat as income to the partners the payments by them, Munro v.

The Affected Items Proceeding On August 26, 1994, respondent mailed petitioner a notice of deficiency in which respondent determined that, for 1982, petitioner was liable for additions to tax for negligence under section 6653(a)(1) and 6653(a)(2) and an addition to tax for a substantial understatement of income tax under section 6661.

648) and section 6226 respondent will be able-- and indeed obliged--to treat as income to the partners the payments by them, Munro v.

ility arises, (C) in the case of a person seeking a declaratory decision under section 7476, the principal place of business, or principal office or agency of the employer, (D) in the case of an organization seeking a declaratory decision under section 7428, the principal office or agency of the organization, or (E) in the case of a petition under section 6226 or 6228(a), the principal place of business of the partnership.

Wilder (Wilder), Tax Matters Partner (TMP) for Valley Cable, timely filed petitions for readjustment of partnership items under section 6226 with respect to Valley Cable's 1983 and 1984 taxable years.

Wilder (Wilder), Tax Matters Partner (TMP) for Valley Cable, timely filed petitions for readjustment of partnership items under section 6226 with respect to Valley Cable's 1983 and 1984 taxable years.