Petaluma FX Partners, LLC v. Comm'r

2007 T.C. Memo. 254, 94 T.C.M. 237, 2007 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 256
CourtUnited States Tax Court
DecidedAugust 28, 2007
DocketNo. 24717-05
StatusUnpublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 2007 T.C. Memo. 254 (Petaluma FX Partners, LLC v. Comm'r) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering United States Tax Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Petaluma FX Partners, LLC v. Comm'r, 2007 T.C. Memo. 254, 94 T.C.M. 237, 2007 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 256 (tax 2007).

Opinion

PETALUMA FX PARTNERS, LLC, RONALD SCOTT VANDERBEEK, A PARTNER OTHER THAN THE TAX MATTERS PARTNER, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
Petaluma FX Partners, LLC v. Comm'r
No. 24717-05
United States Tax Court
T.C. Memo 2007-254; 2007 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 256; 94 T.C.M. (CCH) 237;
August 28, 2007, Filed
*256
Edward M. Robbins, Jr., for petitioner.
Jason M. Kuratnick and Gerald A. Thorpe, for respondent.
Goeke, Joseph Robert

JOSEPH ROBERT GOEKE

MEMORANDUM OPINION

GOEKE, Judge: This matter is before the Court on respondent's motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. 1 Respondent argues that the Court lacks jurisdiction because the notice of final partnership administrative adjustment (FPAA) dated July 28, 2005, upon which the petition is based, was issued for the taxable year of Petaluma FX Partners, LLC (Petaluma), ending August 31, 2000, and thus does not confer jurisdiction on this Court to review adjustments made to Petaluma's taxable year ending December 31, 2000. Because we find the FPAA makes adjustments for the taxable year ending December 31, 2000, and because any reference to the taxable year ending August 31, 2000, was an error typographical in nature, respondent's motion to dismiss will be denied.

BACKGROUND

Petaluma, a purported partnership, 2 was formed in August 2000, and began its business activities on October 10, 2000. Petaluma was a calendar year taxpayer and, on April 2, 2001, filed *257 its Form 1065, U.S. Return of Partnership Income, for the taxable year ending December 31, 2000.

On July 28, 2005, respondent issued an FPAA to the tax matters partner and the notice partners of Petaluma. Respondent determined that the partnership as well as certain transactions relating to the purchase and transfer of offsetting options to the partnership should be disregarded for tax purposes. While the adjustments respondent made in the FPAA pertain to the period October 10 to December 31, 2000, respondent's FPAA reflects that the adjustments are being made for the taxable year ending August 31, 2000.

On August 30, 2005, respondent issued a corrected FPAA to the tax matters partner and the notice partners of Petaluma to reflect that the adjustments were made for the taxable year ending December 31, 2000. With two exceptions, the adjustments made in the August 30, 2005, FPAA were identical to the adjustments made in the July 28, 2005, FPAA. 3*258

On December 30, 2005, Ronald Scott Vanderbeek, as a notice partner of Petaluma, filed a petition seeking review of the adjustments set forth in the FPAA dated July 28, 2005. On May 10, 2006, respondent filed his answer. In his answer, respondent admitted that the date reflecting a taxable year ending August 31, 2000, contained in the initial FPAA was a typographical error and that a corrected FPAA reflecting the proper taxable year ending December 31, 2000, had been issued. Respondent attached the corrected FPAA to his answer.

Respondent now submits that the admission pertaining to the erroneous August 31, 2000, taxable year contained in his answer was itself an error. Respondent suggests that the revenue agent who issued the original FPAA did so with the intent of making adjustments for Petaluma's taxable year ending August 31, 2000. According to respondent, the revenue agent was confused by Petaluma's 2001 return which was filed for a short taxable year ending August 31, 2001.

DISCUSSION

Respondent moves to dismiss the petition for lack of jurisdiction. Respondent argues that because the July 28, *259 2005, notice makes adjustments for the wrong taxable year ending August 31, 2000, instead of the taxable year ending December 31, 2000, the FPAA is invalid, and the Court lacks jurisdiction to review the adjustments therein. Respondent argues that the only FPAA upon which the Court's jurisdiction could have been invoked properly was the corrected FPAA issued on August 30, 2005.

The Tax Court is a court of limited jurisdiction, and we may exercise our jurisdiction only to the extent provided by Congress. See sec. 7442; see also GAF Corp. & Subs. v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 519, 521 (2000). This Court's jurisdiction with respect to the tax treatment of partnerships is derived from the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982 (TEFRA), Pub. L. 97-248, sec. 402(a). Under the TEFRA provisions, the Commissioner must give notice to partners of both the beginning and the end of administrative proceedings at the partnership level. Sec. 6223(a). The ending notice is the issuance of an FPAA. Sec. 6223(a)(2). A partner may then seek judicial review of an FPAA by filing a petition for readjustment of the partnership items with this Court. Sec. 6226.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Petaluma FX Partners, LLC v. Comm'r
131 T.C. No. 9 (U.S. Tax Court, 2008)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
2007 T.C. Memo. 254, 94 T.C.M. 237, 2007 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 256, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/petaluma-fx-partners-llc-v-commr-tax-2007.