Attorney-at-Law

ARE YOU BEING SERVED? – PART DEUX

In Uncategorized on 09/05/2017 at 16:45

Ellen L. Palm-Leis, Docket No. 166/17, filed 9/5/17, claims she never got the NBAP or FPAA for her LLC Rx Cost Containment for one of the years at issue. I could sure use some cost containment my own self.

Some of the rest of the years originally on the table are tossed for want of jurisdiction (reason not stated, but both sides agree on the toss).

Ellen alleges SOL on the SNOD for the year at issue, but that’s not jurisdictional, that’s a defense, so that goes for another day. Maybe.

Ellen also claims she never got the NBAP or FPAA as abovestated. Now the FPAA SOL may be a partnership issue, not one for an individual partner, even a tax matterer like Ellen, in a partner-level case.

But mailing the FPAA is another story. Ellen thinks she may have been a victim of mail theft.

Howbeit, here’s Ch J L Paige (“Iron Fist”) Marvel with the story.

“I.R.C. section 6223(a) generally provides that the Commissioner shall mail to each partner notice of the beginning of an administrative proceeding (NBAP) at the partnership level with respect to a partnership item, as well as notice of the final partnership administrative adjustment (FPAA) resulting from any such proceeding. It is the mailing of the FPAA that triggers the time period for filing a petition of readjustment of the partnership items by either the tax matters partner (TMP) or a notice partner under section 6226(a) and (b). See Crowell v. Commissioner, 102 T.C. 683, 689-692 (1994) (noting that the taxpayers’ objection therein that they were not properly notified of the partnership proceedings as required by section 6223(a) is tantamount to and will be treated as a motion to dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction on the ground that the affected items notice of deficiency is invalid) (noting further that where the validity of an affected items deficiency is questioned in such manner, the Commissioner must be prepared to demonstrate that he complied with the notice requirements in section 6223(a)).” Order, at p. 2.

So show-and-tell, IRS.

I’ve said before that I wasn’t one to mourn the demise of TEFRA.

 

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: