Wherry v. Commissioner

1992 T.C. Memo. 526, 64 T.C.M. 691, 1992 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 541
CourtUnited States Tax Court
DecidedSeptember 8, 1992
DocketDocket No. 10603-86
StatusUnpublished

This text of 1992 T.C. Memo. 526 (Wherry v. Commissioner) 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
Wherry v. Commissioner, 1992 T.C. Memo. 526, 64 T.C.M. 691, 1992 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 541 (tax 1992).

Opinion

C. STEPHEN WHERRY AND VIRGINIA LEE WHERRY, Petitioners v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
Wherry v. Commissioner
Docket No. 10603-86
United States Tax Court
T.C. Memo 1992-526; 1992 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 541; 64 T.C.M. (CCH) 691;
September 8, 1992, Filed

*541 An appropriate order will be issued, and decision will be entered under Rule 55.

Held: The period of limitations upon assessment applicable to a partner's distributive share of partnership items is controlled by the filing of the partner's individual income tax return, as extended by any agreements relating thereto. See Siben v. Commissioner, 930 F.2d 1034 (2d Cir. 1991), affg. T.C. Memo. 1990-435; Stahl v. Commissioner, 96 T.C. 798 (1991).

For Petitioners: Declan J. O'Donnell.
For Respondent: Robert A. Varra
WHITAKER

WHITAKER

MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION

WHITAKER, Judge: This matter is before the Court on petitioners' motion for summary judgment and respondent's cross-motion for summary judgment filed pursuant to Rule 121. 1 Respondent determined a deficiency in, and increased interest on, C. Stephen and Virginia Lee Wherry's (petitioners) Federal income tax for the taxable year ending December 31, 1977, in the amounts set forth below:

Increased Interest
DeficiencySec. 6621(c)
$ 7,5121

*542 A notice of deficiency was mailed to petitioners on January 16, 1986. Petitioners resided in Boulder, Colorado, at the time the petition herein was filed. After mutual concessions made by the parties, the sole issue for decision is whether the period of limitations upon assessment applicable to a partner's distributive share of partnership items is controlled by the filing of the partnership's information return, or by the filing of the partner's individual income tax return, as extended by any agreements relating thereto. 2

FINDINGS OF FACT

Petitioners were validly subscribed members of Great Plains Coal Company (Great Plains), a limited partnership, for the taxable year ending December 31, 1977. On April 15, *543 1978, petitioners filed their 1977 individual income tax return. Great Plains timely filed its 1977 partnership information return. On January 4, 1981, petitioners executed a Form 872-A, thereby extending the time to assess individual income tax against petitioners for the taxable year 1977.

Pursuant to Form 872-A, the amount of income tax due for a taxable year may be assessed on or before the 90th day after: (1) Respondent receives a notice of termination from petitioners, (2) respondent mails a notice of termination to petitioners, or (3) respondent mails a notice of deficiency for the applicable period. Respondent neither received a notice of termination from petitioners, nor mailed a notice of termination to petitioners, for the taxable year at issue. Consequently, as of January 16, 1986, the period of limitations upon assessment had not expired with respect to petitioners' taxable year 1977. Conversely, as of January 16, 1986, more than 3 years had elapsed since the filing of Great Plains' 1977 partnership information return.

On December 30, 1991, petitioners filed a motion for summary judgment asserting that the period of limitations upon assessment had expired with *544 respect to their distributive share of losses from Great Plains prior to the issuance of the notice of deficiency. On February 14, 1992, respondent filed a cross-motion for summary judgment asserting that, except for petitioners' contention regarding the period of limitations upon assessment, all issues relating to petitioners' interest in Great Plains had been resolved through mutual concessions made by the parties. 3

OPINION

The sole issue for decision is whether the period of limitations upon assessment applicable to a partner's distributive share of partnership items is controlled by the filing of the partnership's information return, or by the filing of the partner's individual income tax return, as extended by any agreements relating thereto. Petitioners contend that the period of limitations is controlled by the filing of the partnership's information return. *545 Conversely, respondent contends that the period of limitations is controlled by the filing of the partner's individual income tax return. Respondent agrees that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact relating to the applicable period of limitations upon assessment, and that a decision on this issue may be rendered as a matter of law. See Rule 121(b).

Petitioners cite , revg. and remanding , as authority for the proposition that the period of limitations upon assessment applicable to a partner's distributive share of partnership items is controlled by the filing of the partnership's information return.

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

Related

Stahl v. Commissioner
96 T.C. No. 37 (U.S. Tax Court, 1991)
Siben v. Commissioner
930 F.2d 1034 (Second Circuit, 1991)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
1992 T.C. Memo. 526, 64 T.C.M. 691, 1992 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 541, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wherry-v-commissioner-tax-1992.