§6230

2244, 2266 (2024) (overruling Chevron and stating that if a government agency’s interpretation of a statute “is not the best, it is not permissible”).

6231(a)(6) defines the term "computational adjustment" to mean "the change in the tax liability ofa partner which properly reflects the treatment under * * * [the TEFRA partnership rules] ofa partnership (continued...) -28- [*28] Congress enacted section 6234 to "overrule[]" this Court's decision in Munro v.

6231(a)(6) defines the term "computational adjustment" to mean "the change in the tax liability ofa partner which properly reflects the treatment under * * * [the TEFRA partnership rules] ofa partnership (continued...) -28- [*28] Congress enacted section 6234 to "overrule[]" this Court's decision in Munro v.

Since there has been no adjustment to any partnership item, "the section 6230(a)(2)(A)(i) exclusion from deficiency procedures is inapplicable" in this case, as it was in Malone.

Ifthe Commissioner "erroneouslygomputed any [such] computational adjustment", under section 6230(o)(1)(A)(i)the partner is not eligible for a prepaymentremedy but instead mustpay,the tax and file a claim for refund Another,example,.whichalso does not apply here, is presented by section 6230(c)(1)(A)(ii) As set forth in that section, iffhe Commissioner "erronèously computed any computational adjustment necessary * * * to apply to the partnei.

at 328.] In Dubin, we lacked jurisdiction because the deficiency notice was invalid as to P, since it was issued prior to the completion of partnership-level proceedings.9 Respondent argues that we have jurisdiction in the instant case and that it is distinguishable from Maxwell v.

We disagree with petitioners.

PPI's Deductions and Cost ofGoods Sold For 2005, 2006, and 2009 PPI deducted over $3 million in business expenses as set forth in Appendix E.33 With limited exceptions, we hold that petitioners have not substantiated the amounts or business purpose ofthe deducted expenses, and we sustain respondent's disallowance ofthe deductions.

PPI's Deductions and Cost ofGoods Sold For 2005, 2006, and 2009 PPI deducted over $3 million in business expenses as set forth in Appendix E.33 With limited exceptions, we hold that petitioners have not substantiated the amounts or business purpose ofthe deducted expenses, and we sustain respondent's disallowance ofthe deductions.

PPI's Deductions and Cost ofGoods Sold For 2005, 2006, and 2009 PPI deducted over $3 million in business expenses as set forth in Appendix E.33 With limited exceptions, we hold that petitioners have not substantiated the amounts or business purpose ofthe deducted expenses, and we sustain respondent's disallowance ofthe deductions.

PPI's Deductions and Cost ofGoods Sold For 2005, 2006, and 2009 PPI deducted over $3 million in business expenses as set forth in Appendix E.33 With limited exceptions, we hold that petitioners have not substantiated the amounts or business purpose ofthe deducted expenses, and we sustain respondent's disallowance ofthe deductions.

PPI's Deductions and Cost ofGoods Sold For 2005, 2006, and 2009 PPI deducted over $3 million in business expenses as set forth in Appendix E.33 With limited exceptions, we hold that petitioners have not substantiated the amounts or business purpose ofthe deducted expenses, and we sustain respondent's disallowance ofthe deductions.

Because we hold that the adjustments in the Milling FPAA (continued...) - 19 - [*19] viewed as representing the 'deficiency impact' ofthe proper tax treatment of the underlying partnership items." Rawls Trading, L.P.

On November 13, 2008, a face-to-face hearing was held in accordance with petitioner's request.

Instead, we hold that the words "properly reflects" in the definition of "computational adjustment" in section 6231(a) (6) are construed as of the time the notice is issued and without looking behind that notice.

Pursuant to section 6230(c)(4), - 10 - the determination under the FPAA or under the decision of a court concerning the applicability of any penalty relating to an adjustment to a partnership item shall be deemed conclusive ; however, "the partner shall be allowed to assert any partner level defenses that may apply or to

year.2 In Grigoraci I, this Court concluded, among other things, that the self-employment tax determined by respondent, insofar as it was attributable to self- employment tax on the S corporation’s distributive share of GTWP’s income, was an “affected item” requiring a “partner-level determination” pursuant to section 6230(a)(2).

We hold that, under the circumstances of these cases, respondent is not obligated to extend to petitioners an offer of settlement consistent with the terms of settlement agreements made with other Jojoba partners.

We hold that, under the circumstances of these cases, respondent is not obligated to extend to petitioners an offer of settlement consistent with the terms of settlement agreements made with other Jojoba partners.

If there are factual issues which must be determined at the partner level, then respondent's permitted means of making the adjustment is through the issuance of a deficiency notice pursuant to section 6230(a)(2)(A)(i).

Because the only items in dispute in White concerned additions to tax, the underlying deficiency in tax having been previously assessed as a computational adjustment pursuant to section 6230(a)(1), we held that former section 6621(c)(4) did not provide this Court with jurisdiction to redetermine the taxpayers' liability for increased interest under former section 6621(c).10 Accord Odend'Hal v.

The applicability or inapplicability of deficiency procedures under section 6230 is statutorily mandated and bereft of any administrative discretion.

The Malones argue, however, that the inconsistently reported partnership items on their 2005 Form 1040 were "adjusted" within the meaning ofsection 6230(a)(2)(A)(i). We disagree. The adjustments made to the liability reported on the Malones' 2005 Form 1040 were computational adjustments to their tax liability to take into account the partnership items as originally reported by MBJ. There were no adjustments to partnership items. Accordingly, the section 6230(a)(2)(A)(i) exclusion from deficiency

Secondary authority for issuance ofthe regulation is found in section 6230(k), which provides: "The Secretary shall prescribe such regulations as may be necessary to carry out the 32While sec. 7805(e)(2) provides that "Any temporary regulation shall expire within 3 years after the date ofissuance ofsuch regulation", that:section applies only to regulations issued after November 20, 1988. Technical and Miscellaneous Revenue Act of 1988, Pub. L. No. 100-647, sec. 6232(a), 102 Stat. at 3734. Thus,

Petitioners contend we erroneously adopted Chevron deference when we concluded section 6230 directs the Secretary to “fill in the gap” and that the regulation is neither contrary to the statute nor otherwise unlawful.

"Under section 6230 the appropriate venue for partners to raise subsequent challenges to the imposition ofpenalties is in a postpayment refund action." R; see also Woods, 571 U.S. at 39; Highpoint Tower Tech. Inc. v. Commissioner, 931 F.3d 1050, 1063 n.10 (11th Cir. 2019) (identifying refund proceedings and CDP proceedings as partner-level proceedings whe

"Under section 6230 the appropriate venue for partners to raise subsequent challenges to the imposition ofpenalties is in a postpayment refund action." R; see also Woods, 571 U.S. at 39; Highpoint Tower Tech. Inc. v. Commissioner, 931 F.3d 1050, 1063 n.10 (11th Cir. 2019) (identifying refund proceedings and CDP proceedings as partner-level proceedings whe

Under section 6230 the appropriate venue for partners to raise subsequent challenges to the imposition ofpenalties is in a postpayment refund action. Sec. 6230(c)(4), (c)(1)(C); sec. 301.6221-1(c), Proced. & Admin. Regs.; see also Woods, 571 U.S. at 39 ("[M]ost computational adjustments may be directly assessed against the partners, bypassing deficiency

Secondary authority for issuance of the regulation is found in section 6230(k), which provides: “The Secretary shall prescribe such regulations as may be necessary to carry out the purposes of this subchapter”; i.e., subchapter C of chapter 63, which contains sections 6221 through 6234.

The,second type-of affected item is an adjustment to a partner's tax liability that results from a partnership-level adjustment and requires a,factual determination to be made at the partner level . See sec : 6230(a) (2) (A) (i) ; . Meruelo v . Commissioner, supra at~, (slip . op-at 14), ; see also Domulewicz v . Commissioner, 129

As explained below, we lack both affected item jurisdiction under section 6230 and section 6621(c)(4) jurisdiction to determine whether petitioner is liable for additional interest under section 6621(c).

gs, that the self-employment tax determined by respondent, insofar as it was attributable to self-employment tax on the S corporation’s distributive share of GTWP’s income, was an “affected item” requiring a “partner-level determination” pursuant to section 6230(a)(2). Because the notice of deficiency in Grigoraci I was issued before the close of the partnership proceedings, this Court dismissed for lack of jurisdiction so much of petitioners’ case as related to that affected item. Id. On Januar

o had 124 “Once a partnership-level proceeding is final, the liability of the partners, if any, may be determined in a partner-level proceeding, which may involve a computational adjustment or a notice of deficiency.” Dynamo, 150 T.C. at 233 (citing § 6230(a)). We note that the disposition of this partnership-level proceeding does not preclude a partner’s raising a personal defense to penalties in that partner-level proceeding. See id. (citing Treas. Reg. § 301.6221-1(d)). 142 [*142] sufficient

Penalty Approval Section 6751(b)(1) provides that “[n]o penalty under this title shall be assessed unless the initial determination of such assessment is personally approved (in writing) by the immediate supervisor of the in- dividual making such determination.” In Belair Woods, LLC v.

28 Big Hill, Tick Creek Holdings, and Vista Hill have agreed to be bound by our penalty determinations in this case. This lower tranche penalty is predicated on our prior determination that the Partnerships are not entitled to claim noncash charitable contribution deductions for the tax years at issue.

applied). “Once a partnership-level proceeding is final, the liability of the partners, if any, may be determined in a partner-level proceeding, which may involve a computational adjustment or a notice of deficiency.” Dynamo, 150 T.C. at 233 (citing § 6230(a)). We note that the disposition of this partnership-level proceeding does not preclude a partner’s ability to raise a defense to penalties in that partner-level proceeding. See id. (citing Treas. Reg. § 301.6221-1). 47 [*47] and acted in goo

§ 6230(a)(2)(A)(i) (TEFRA); I.R.C. § 6231(a)(5) (TEFRA); Estate of Quick v. Commissioner, 110 T.C. 172, 183 (1998). We have held “that the characterization of losses as either passive or nonpassive in the hands of a partner is an affected item under section 469.” Estate of Quick, 110 T.C. at 188. The Commissioner asks us to determine whether Mr. Si

62(b)(1). “Once a partnership-level proceeding is final, the liability of the partners, if any, may be determined in a partner-level proceeding, which may involve a computational adjustment or a notice of deficiency.” Dynamo, 150 T.C. at 233 (citing § 6230(a)). We note that the disposition of this partnership-level proceeding does not preclude a partner’s possible liability for negligence or his ability to raise a defense to penalties in that partner-level proceeding. See id. (citing Treas. Reg.

at 4–7 (determining that we had jurisdiction to determine the applicability of the section 6662 penalties in a partner- level proceeding under a previous version of section 6230 but lacked jurisdiction to redetermine deficiencies attributable to partnership items).

§ 6230(a); Grigoraci, 84 T.C.M. (CCH) at 189; see also N.C.F. Energy Partners v. Commissioner, 89 T.C. 741, 744–45 (1987) (finding adjustments to affected items dependent on factual determinations, other than a computation, are to be made in partner-level proceedings). Section 6231(a)(3) defines a partnership item as “any item required to be taken

See § 6230(f); Kimball v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2008-78, 95 T.C.M. (CCH) 1306, 1308; Vander Heide v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1996-74, 71 T.C.M. (CCH) 2151, 2153. In Vander Heide, an adjustment flowed through to married taxpayers—non-notice partners—following a partnership-level settlement. Vander Heide, 71 T.C.M. (CCH) at 2152. The taxpayers argued

On September 9, 2014, the Commissioner sent Mr. Goldberg a Letter 4735, Notice of Computational Adjustment,5 along with Form 4549-A, setting forth the adjustments to Mr. Goldberg’s 1998 income tax return flowing from the partnership-level adjustments in this Court’s final decision in the Matador case. The Letter 4735 was sent via t

In addition, the determination * * * under the decision ofthe court * * * concerning the applicability ofany penalty * * * shall also be conclusive." See also Tigers Eye Trading, LLC v.

She then proceeded to prepare a Letter 3193, Notice ofDetermination Concerning Collection Action(s) Under Section 6230 and/or Section 6330 (notice ofdetermination).

Under section 6230, partner-level defenses are "those that are personal to the partner or are dependent upon the partner's separate return and cannot be determined at the partnership level." Sec. 301.6221-1(d), Proced. & Admin. Regs. The tax treatment ofpartnership items and the applicability ofany penalty, addition to tax, - 23 - [*23] or additional am

"6Sec. 301.6231(a)(3)-1(a)(4), Proced. & Admin. Regs. - 103 - [*103] 1. Contribution ofthe Bargain Sale We previously found that Beekman made a deemed distribution to Mrs. Moog."7 Accordingly, Mrs. Moog is deemed to have made a gift to the U.S. trusts in a 60/40 split, where she gave 60% ofthe value to the Christine Dynasty Trust

ion.67 Negligence is strongly indicated where a taxpayer fails to make a reasonable attempt to ascertain the correctness ofa deduction, credit, or exclusion on a return that would seem to a reasonable and prudent person to be "too good to be true" "Sec. 6230(c)(4). 65Sec. 301.6221-1(c) and (d), Proced. & Admin. Regs. "Sec. 6662(c); Higbee v. Commissioner, 116 T.C. 438, 448 (2001). 67See Higbee v. Commissioner, 116 T.C. at 449; sec. 1.6662-3(b)(1), Income Tax Regs. -51- [*51] under the circumstan

"6Sec. 301.6231(a)(3)-1(a)(4), Proced. & Admin. Regs. - 103 - [*103] 1. Contribution ofthe Bargain Sale We previously found that Beekman made a deemed distribution to Mrs. Moog."7 Accordingly, Mrs. Moog is deemed to have made a gift to the U.S. trusts in a 60/40 split, where she gave 60% ofthe value to the Christine Dynasty Trust

6230(a)(2)(A)(i); Woody v. Commissioner, 95 T.C. 193 (1990). Generally, a U.S. citizen whose tax home is in a foreign country and who is a bona fide resident ofa foreign country for an uninterrupted period that includes an entire taxable year may elect to exclude from gross income his "foreign earned income" and to exclude or deduct (depending

to the asserted penalty. Their reasonable cause and good-faith defense is addressed below. Respondent has conceded that an erroneous computation resulted in an overassessment. See infra note 26. Petitioners point to no other applicable provisions ofsec. 6230. - 23 - [*23] Commissioner's determination de novo. Goza v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 176, 181-182 (2000). Where the underlying tax liability is not at issue, the Court reviews the IRS decision for abuse ofdiscretion. Id. at 182. Section 6330(c

6230(a)(2)(A)(i); Woody v. Commissioner, 95 T.C. 193 (1990). Generally, a U.S. citizen whose tax home is in a foreign country and who is a bona fide resident ofa foreign country for an uninterrupted period that includes an entire taxable year may elect to exclude from gross income his "foreign earned income" and to exclude or deduct (depending

The statute - 11 - [*11] provides that although a partnership-level determination'2 is conclusive in a subsequentrefund action, it does not prevent individual partners from asserting any partner-level defenses that may apply in the partner-level proceedings.

The statute - 11 - [*11] provides that although a partnership-level determination'2 is conclusive in a subsequentrefund action, it does not prevent individual partners from asserting any partner-level defenses that may apply in the partner-level proceedings.

6230(a)(2)(A)(i). - 75 - As the opinion ofthe Court acknowledges, Congress intended the TEFRA procedures and the normal deficiencyprocedures to be "mutually exclusive". See op. Ct. p. 43; see also Internal Revenue Manual (IRM) pt. 4.31.2.1.1(1) (June 1, 2004)("[T]he TEFRApartnership rules and the deficiencyprocedures are mutually exclusive.")

6230(a)(2)(A)(i). We note that duplicative audits and litigation were some of the problems Congress sought to resolve in enacting TEFRA. See Adams v. Johnson, 355 F.3d 1179, 1186-1187 (9th Cir. 2004); Maxwell v. Commissioner, 87 T.C. 783, 787 (1986); H.R. Conf. Rept. No. 97-760, at 599-600 (1982), 1982-2 C.B. 600, 662-663. Internal Revenue Man

6230 (a) (2) (A) (i) was amended in 1997 to provide that penalties related to partnership adjustments be determined -at the partnership level and therefore not be included-insa notice of deficiency. Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997., Publ. «L. 105r34, sec. 1238 (b) ) , (6) 111 Stat TO26 1027 Nèie Millenniun Trading , L . ommi sion 31 T 2 5, 2 9 (20

Like section 6230, section 6037(c) limits the parties involved to nondeficiency procedures--it first says the Commissioner shall assess according to section 6213(b)(1) (which doesn't involve deficiency procedures), and then it says that a taxpayer can't resort to section 6213(b)(2) to invoke deficiency procedures, either . To summarize, section 6037 gov

Respondent claims that the regulations are interpretive under the APA, but the Secretary's cited source of authority doesn't quite match that sentiment--he promulgated one of these regulation s explicitly under section 7805 alone and the other under both - 57 - section 7805 and section 6230(k), knowing that regulations issued under these sections carry the force of law .

Respondent claims that the regulations are interpretive under the APA, but the Secretary’s cited source of authority doesn’t quite match that sentiment — he promulgated one of these regulations explicitly under section 7805 alone and the other under both section 7805 and section 6230(k), knowing that regulations issued under these sections carry the force of law.

Like section 6230, section 6037(c) limits the parties involved to nondeficiency procedures — it first says the Commissioner shall assess according to section 6213(b)(1) (which doesn’t involve deficiency procedures), and then it says that a taxpayer can’t resort to section 6213(b)(2) to invoke deficiency procedures, either. To summarize, section 6037 gov

RAT distributions under the CRAT anti-abuse regulation requires various partner-level determinations, including, but not limited to, the values and bases of the Miller CRAT's assets . See sec . 1 .643(a)-8(b)(1) and (2), Income Tax Regs . ; see also sec. 6230(a)(2)(A)(i) ; Estate of Quick v . Commissioner , 110 T .C . 172, 181-182 (partner-level determination under sec . 469 passive loss rules is an affected item), supplemented by 110 T .C . 440 (1998) ; Jenkins v . Commissioner, 102 T .C . 550,

Respondent argues that we have jurisdict on under section 6230 (a) (2) (A) (i) because the deficiency s attributable to an affected item and requires partner-leve-l factual determination's Petitioner makes two c.ounterarguments thatthe,requirements of( l section 6230(a) (2) (A) (i) xhave not .been met and therefore -10- respondent was required to directly assess the tax rather than issuing the de

See section 6230(c)(4) . Partner-level defenses are limited to those that are personal to the partner or are dependent upon the partner's separate return and cannot be determined at the partnership level . Examples of these determinations are whether any applicable threshold underpayment of tax has been met with respect to the partner or whether the pa

e Service in 1988 or 1989 that the post ffice box was no longer his proper address, he replied : "No, did not ." Neither - 8 petitioner nor respondent produced a copy of petitioner's 1987 or 1988 Federal income tax return .- The last known address doctrine is derived from section 6212(b)(1), which provides that a notice of deficiency is sufficient if it is mailed to the taxpayer at his last known address .

Partner-level defenses are limited to those that are personal to the partner or are dependent upon the partner’s separate return and cannot be determined at the partnership level. Examples of these determinations are whether any applicable threshold underpayment of tax has been met with respect to the partner or whether the part

Section 6230(a)(2)(A)(i) provides that deficiency proceedings apply to affected items which require partner level determinations other than penalties that relate to adjustments to partnership items .

Section 6230(a)(2)(A)(i) provides that deficiency proceedings apply to affected items which require partner-level determinations other than penalties that relate to adjustments to partnership items. In the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 (1997 TRA), Pub. L. 105-34, sec. 1238(a), 111 Stat. 1026, Congress amended section 6221 to provide that the applicab

On July 19, 2004, the Appeals Office issued to petitioner a notice of determination concerning collection action(s) under section 6230 and/or 6330 (notice of determination).

6230(a)(2); see also sec. 6231(a)(4) (defines a “nonpartnership item” as an item which is (or is treated as) not a partnership item); sec. 6231(a)(5) (defines an “affected item” as any item to the extent the item is affected by a partnership item). The Court’s jurisdiction over a TEFRA partnership-level proceeding is invoked when the tax matte

On December 4, 2003, respondent’s Office of Appeals issued to petitioner a Notice of Determination Concerning Collection Action(s) Under Code Section 6230(c) or 6330(d).

uire the Secretary to release property that has been levied upon or to cease or refrain from 3 The Taxpayer Assistance Order was a concept provided for in the Taxpayer Bill of Rights, Technical and Miscellaneous Revenue Act of 1988, Pub. L. 100-647, sec. 6230(a), 102 Stat. 3733, which was signed into law on Nov. 10, 1988, and became effective Jan. 1, 1989. 6 Administration, Internal Revenue Manual (CCH), sec. 13.1.1.1.1, at 40903 (2000). - 12 - action under certain delineated circumstances. The

6230(a)(1); sec. 301.6231(a)(6)-1T, Temporary Proced. & Admin. Regs., 52 Fed. Reg. 6790 (Mar. 5, 1987). Therefore, we have jurisdiction in this proceeding to determine the effect of the Finley Kumble partnership-level allocations on petitioners’ tax liability to the extent the change in petitioners’ tax liability resulting from the partnership

Energy Partners v. Commissioner, 89 T.C. 741, 744 (1987); Maxwell v. Commissioner, 87 T.C. 783, 792 n.9 (1986). It is those additions to tax that are in issue in the present cases. K. Epilogue: Demise of the Jojoba Partnerships The jojoba partnerships proved to be financial failures. In October 1991, some 30 to 40 jojoba partne

Energy Partners v. Commissioner, 89 T.C. 741, 744 (1987); Maxwell v. Commissioner, 87 T.C. 783, 792 n.9 (1986). It is those additions to tax that are in issue in the present cases. K. Epilogue: Demise of the Jojoba Partnerships The jojoba partnerships proved to be financial failures. In October 1991, some 30 to 40 jojoba partne

In accordance with IRC Section 6230(c)(2)(A), we feel is [sic] very relevant that the IRS can provide no evidence that a procedurally correct lawful assessment exist for any of the tax periods * * * therefore, under IRC Section (c)(2)(B), we will raise at the hearing challenges to the existence and amount of the Underlying Tax Liability, Unless the Secretary can provide

Energy Partners v. Commissioner, 89 T.C. 741, 744 (1987); Maxwell v. Commissioner, 87 T.C. 783, 792 n.9 (1986). It is those additions to tax that are in issue in the present case. J. Epilogue: Demise of the Jojoba Partnerships The jojoba partnerships proved to be financial failures. In October 1991, some 30 to 40 jojoba partner

Energy Partners v. Commissioner, 89 T.C. 741, 744 (1987); Maxwell v. Commissioner, 87 T.C. 783, 792 n.9 (1986). It is those additions to tax that are in issue in the present case. J. Epilogue: Demise of the Jojoba Partnerships The jojoba partnerships proved to be financial failures. In October 1991, some 30 to 40 jojoba partner

6230(a)(1); sec. 301.6231(a)(6)-lT, Temporary Proced. & Admin. Regs., 52 Fed. Reg. 6790 (Mar. 5, 1987). Therefore, we have jurisdiction in this proceeding to determine the effect of the Finley Kumble partnership-level allocations on petitioners’ tax liability to the extent the change in petitioners’ tax liability resulting from the partnership

Although the Appeals Office concluded that petitioner had failed to file his request for a hearing within the time prescribed in section 6230 or 6330, the Appeals Office granted petitioner a so-called equivalent hearing.

6230(f); Vander Heide v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1996-74. Finally, petitioner contends that a duty was created which required respondent to mail copies of the FPAA to each. of the 116 partners of Ranch Properties because respondent had done so in prior years. We disagree.. Respondent satisfied the notice requirement of section 6223(a) by mail

Petitioner disagrees with the determination under §§6230 and/or 6330 alleged for the year: 1990, 1991, 1992, 1993, and 1994 as set forth in the NOTICE OF DETERMINATION CONCERNING COLLECTION ACTION(S) which is dated FEB.

This Court does not have jurisdiction to determine partnership items in a partner level proceeding. See secs. 6221, 6226; Brookes v. Commissioner, 108 T.C. 1, 6 (1997). The expiration of the·period of limitations for issuance of the FPAA is an affirmative defense that must be raised in a partnership level proceeding. See Crowell v. Co

Section 6230(a)(2)(A)(i) provides that the normal deficiency procedures apply to those affected items which require partner level determinations. For the years at issue, the additions to tax for negligence are affected items requiring factual determinations at - 8 - the individual partner level. Id. at 745. The Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997, Pub. L.

ship items under the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982, Pub. L. 97-248, 96 Stat. 324 (such as the White Rim and Syn-Fuel investments for 1983, 1984, and 1985), would be governed by the separate and independent proceedings described in section 6230(a)(3). Any abatement of interest that might be available to petitioners would be governed by the separate proceedings described in section 6404(e). See Bourekis v. Commissioner, 110 T.C. 20, 26 (1998). In light of our denial of petitione

Section 6230(a)(2)(A)(i) provides that the normal deficiency procedures apply to those affected items that require partner level determinations. Traditionally, additions to tax were considered - 17 - affected items requiring factual determinations at the individual partner level. See N.C.F. Energy Partners v. Commissioner, supra at 745; see also s

ship items under the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982, Pub. L. 97-248, 96 Stat. 324 (such as the White Rim and Syn-Fuel investments for 1983, 1984, and 1985), would be governed by the separate and independent proceedings described in section 6230(a)(3). Any abatement of interest that might be available to petitioners would be governed by the separate proceedings described in section 6404(e). See Bourekis v. Commissioner, 110 T.C. 20, 26 (1998). In light of our denial of petitione

Rather, as provided under section 6230(a)(2)(A)(i), the normal deficiency procedures apply to affected items that require partner-level determinations.

he Partners’ Remedies Intervenor argues that, unless we conclude that equitable recoupment is a partnership item, the partners will be barred from defending against any computational adjustment on account of subsections (a)(1) and (c)(1) and (4) of section 6230, which, according to intervenor, (1) render the deficiency procedures inapplicable to computational adjustments except in the case of a deficiency attributable to affected items requiring partner-level determinations and (2) restrict refu

The Partners’ Remedies Intervenor argues that, unless we conclude that equitable recoupment is a partnership item, the partners will be barred from defending against any computational adjustment on account of subsections (a)(1) and (c)(1) and (4) of section 6230, which, according to intervenor, (1) render the deficiency procedures inapplicable to computational adjustments except in the case of a deficiency attributable to affected items requiring partner-level determinations and (2) restrict ref

Further, section 6230(f) expressly provides that the failure of the TMP to provide notice or to perform any act on behalf of any partner, as required by either the statute or the regulations, would not affect the applicability of any partnership proceeding or adjustment to such partner.

- 10 - no particular congressional intent as to the nature of consistent settlements.10 Under section 6230(k), however, the Secretary "shall prescribe such regulations as may be necessary to carry out the purposes" of subchapter C (the TEFRA provisions).

- 10 - no particular congressional intent as to the nature of consistent settlements.10 Under section 6230(k), however, the Secretary "shall prescribe such regulations as may be necessary to carry out the purposes" of subchapter C (the TEFRA provisions).

- 10 - no particular congressional intent as to the nature of consistent settlements.10 Under section 6230(k), however, the Secretary "shall prescribe such regulations as may be necessary to carry out the purposes" of subchapter C (the TEFRA provisions).

- 10 - no particular congressional intent as to the nature of consistent settlements.10 Under section 6230(k), however, the Secretary "shall prescribe such regulations as may be necessary to carry out the purposes" of subchapter C (the TEFRA provisions).

Fraud on the Court In the alternative, participants argue that respondent's attorneys, Hamilton and Hayes, committed fraud on the Court because they continued to deal with Winer as TMP of Davenport despite their knowledge of the contents of the Permanent Injunction and Modification. In their briefs and during the evidentiary hearing o

6230 (a)(1); N.C.F. Energy Partners v. Commissioner, 89 T.C. 741, 744 (1987); Maxwell v. Commissioner, supra at 792 n.9. The second type of affected item is one that is dependent on factual determinations to be made at the individual partner level. N.C.F. Energy Partners v. Commissioner, supra at 744. Section 6230(a)(2)(A)(i) provides that the