DocketNumber: No. 15098-06
Judges: "Kroupa, Diane L."
Filed Date: 4/30/2008
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 11/20/2020
ORDER AND DECISION
This case was assigned to Judge Diane L. Kroupa on August 20, 2007.
Petitioner, Wilmington Management Corp., the tax matters partner for Wilmington Partners L.P. (Wilmington), filed a Motion for Summary Judgment and a Memorandum of Law in Support of Petitioner's Motion for Summary Judgment on July 27, 2007. Petitioner moves for summary judgment on the issue of whether the Notice of Final Partnership Administrative Adjustment (FPAA)dated May 12, 2006, was issued after the applicable limitations period had expired.
Respondent filed Respondent's Cross-Motion for Partial Summary Judgment and a Memorandum of Law in Support of Respondent's Cross-Motion for Partial Summary Judgment and Respondent's Notice of Objection to Petitioner's Motion for Summary Judgment on October 1, 2007. Respondent's cross motion involves the same issue as petitioner's summary judgment motion but focuses upon whether petitioner omitted an amount from gross income that was sufficiently large to trigger the six-year limitations period and whether the alleged omission wassufficiently disclosed on the return Wilmington filed or in statements attached to the return. 1*307
Petitioner filed Petitioner's Notice of Objection to Respondent's Cross-Motion for Partial Summary Judgment and a Memorandum of Law in Reply to Respondent's Notice of Objection to Petitioner's Motion for Summary Judgment and in Support of Petitioner's Notice of Objection to Respondent's Cross-Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on October 30, 2007.
After carefully considering both parties' positions and arguments, we conclude that we must grant petitioner's motion for summary judgment and deny respondent's motion for partial summary judgment.
We provide these facts as background. Both petitioner and respondent have made several admissions for purposes of the pending motions only. We have made no findings of fact in resolving the pending motions.
Wilmington was formed in 1993 when Bausch and Lomb, Inc. 2 (B&L) engaged in a financing arrangement with four banks. The arrangement involved one outside partnership in which B&L held a minority interest to engage in the loan, and a second, majority owned partnership to hold the collateral. Wilmington is the second, majority-owned partnership. As part of this arrangement, a member of B&L's consolidated *308 return group, BLIHC, contributed a long-term note receivable (the 1993 Reset Note) to Wilmington in exchange for a partnership interest. Wilmington treated the 1993 Reset Note as an asset with a basis and fair market value of $550 million from the time of its contribution in 1993 until June 18, 1999.
Wilmington undertook certain restructuring transactions in June 1999. Wilmington treated these transactions on June 4, 1999, as a termination of partnership under
Wilmington engaged in another series of transactions *309 on June 18, 1999 (i.e., in the 1999-2 year). The 1993 Reset Note was exchanged for two replacement notes, one for $243 million and the other for $307 million. A partner withdrew from the partnership and received cash and the $243 million note receivable in liquidation of its interest. Finally, Wilmington sold a business for $242 million, allocating $189,246,557 to goodwill, patentsand intangibles.
Wilmington filed its Form 1065, U.S. Partnership Return of Income, for 1999-1 on or about April 6, 2000. Wilmington mailed its 1999-2 tax return on June 6, 2000, and it was date stamped received by respondent on June 9, 2000.
Respondent issued the FPAA on May 12, 2006. The FPAA makes no adjustments to Wilmington's income, gain or loss for tax year 1999-1. Instead respondent adjusted Wilmington's basis in the 1993 Reset Note from $550 million to zero for both 1999-1 and 1999-2. Respondent also reduced Wilmington's basis in several assets in connection with Wilmington's 1999-2 section 754 election and correspondingly increased the ordinary income and long-term capital gain Wilmington reported for 1999-2.
Respondent determined in the FPAA that Wilmington failed to report 198,632,836 of income. *310 This includes $189,238,318 from the gain on the sale of goodwill, $9,386,279 of additional gain on the sale of section 1245 property, and $8,239 from the gain on the sale of patents and intangibles. All of the adjustments made in the FPAA derive from respondent's determination that Wilmington's basis in the 1993 Reset Note is zero, not $550 million.
To summarize, the FPAA was issued on May 12, 2006, over six years after Wilmington filed its return for 1999-1 (i.e. on April 6, 2000) and almost six years after Wilmington filed its return for 1999-2 (i.e. June 6, 2000). Respondent does not allege that the FPAA was issued within three years of filing the return for 1999-2 or that any partner extended the 1999-2 limitations period for any partnership or affected items. Respondent asserts with respect to the 1999-2 tax year, however, that the FPAA was timely because it was sent before the six-year limitations period expired under
Petitioner argues that the FPAA was issued after the applicable limitations period had expired and petitioner is therefore entitled to summary judgment. Petitioner's argument relies upon the holding in
Respondent agrees that there is no dispute about the material facts necessary to determine whether overstatement of basis is an omission from gross income but contends that the six year statute of limitations applies to allow the adjustment of items for Wilmington's 1999-2 tax year. 5*313 Respondent's argument depends upon the Court's willingness to overrule its decision in Bakersfield. Respondent argues that Wilmington's overstatement of basis was a substantial omission of income under
We begin with whether to grant summary judgment. Summary judgment is intended to expedite litigation and avoid unnecessary and expensive trials. See, e.g.,
Here, whether the case may proceed depends upon the limitations period. The Commissioner is generally required to assess tax within three years of the filing of a Federal income tax return.
TEFRA partnership proceedings are unique in that the Code provides no period during which they must be commenced.
A six-year limitations period applies where specific income receipts have been omitted in computing gross income but not when an overstatement of basis results in an understatement of gross income.
Petitioner argues, relying on
We agree with the parties that
Upon due consideration and for cause, it is
ORDERED that Respondent's Cross-Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, filed October 1, 2007, is denied. It is further
ORDERED that Petitioner's Motion for Summary Judgment, filed July 27, 2007 is granted.
ORDERED AND DECIDED that the *318 adjustments set forth in the Notice of Final Partnership Administrative Adjustment mailed May 12, 2006, with respect to the tax years ended June 4, 1999, and December 25, 1999, are barred as a result of the expiration of the applicable period of limitations.
1. There is no need to decide this second issue.
2. B&L filed a petition with this Court in docket no. 20958- 07. Today we issued an order granting respondent's motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction in that partner-level case.↩
3. All section references are to the Internal Revenue Code, and all Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure, unless otherwise indicated.↩
4.
We note that the Court of Federal Claims recently decided two cases regarding whether overstatement of basis is an omission from gross income for purposes of the limitations period. See
5. Petitioner attests that no Wilmington partner consented to any extension of time to assess tax attributable to Wilmington's partnership items for 1999-2. Respondent does not dispute this.
6. Because the references to "tax" in
7. The U.S. Supreme Court in Colony interpreted