DocketNumber: Docket No. 5939-81.
Citation Numbers: 43 T.C.M. 94, 1981 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 36, 1981 T.C. Memo. 707
Filed Date: 12/15/1981
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 11/21/2020
MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION
DAWSON,
OPINION OF THE SPECIAL TRIAL JUDGE
GILBERT,
The petitioner Sumerset Properties is a limited partnership with one general partner and 32 limited partners. Respondent issued notices of deficiency, under section 6212, variously dated December 22, 23, and 24, 1980, to 11 of the limited partners*38 with respect to the taxable year 1975 of each. The deficiencies in the partners' individual income tax liabilities were apparently based on respondent's disallowance of deductions which they claimed flowed through to them from the partnership. 3 Each of the notices advised the recipient of his right to petition the Tax Court for a redetermination of the deficiency, within 90 days of the mailing date of the notice. The limited partners gave the notices to the general partner, Sidney Feit. On March 19, 1981, shortly before the 90-day period expired, Feit filed a petition listing the partnership as petitioner and contesting the adjustments to partnership income on which the deficiencies in the partners' tax liabilities had been based. The petition was signed by Feit as general partner. No petitions were filed by the partners individually.
Respondent now moves for the dismissal of the petition filed on behalf of the partnership on the grounds that no notice of deficiency*39 was received by the partnership (which in any event is not a taxable entity, see
Inasmuch as no statutory notice of deficiency was issued to either of them, there is clearly no basis for substituting as petitioners either the general partner or the limited partners who were not issued notices of deficiency. Therefore, petitioner's motion will be denied insofar as it concerns them. The remainder of this opinion will deal with that motion insofar as it concerns the 11 partners who did receive notices of deficiency, and the term "partners" will hereinafter refer to them only.
The jurisdiction of this Court is limited by section 6213(a) to taxpayers who have filed a timely petition*40 with the Court in response to a notice of deficiency issued to them under the authority of section 6212.
In support of his motion, petitioner cites the case of
Accordingly, we conclude that petitioner's motion to substitute petitioners should be denied and the respondent's motion to dismiss should be granted. 4 We note that this action will not result in the forfeiture of the partners' rights to contest the deficiencies determined against them; the question of their individual tax liabilities may still be litigated in the District Court or the Court of Claims, where a binding judgment can be rendered, free of any doubt as to the jurisdiction of the tribunal.
1. Unless otherwise indicated, all section references are to the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, as amended; and all references to "Rules" are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure. ↩
2. Since this is a pre-trial motion, the Court has concluded that the post-trial procedures of
3. Some of the notices also concerned additional taxable years of the recipients. It is unclear whether the deficiencies determined for those other years also resulted from adjustments to partnership income.↩
4. Compare