140 T.C. No. 8
T.C.2013Background
- TEFRA partnership-level proceeding under TEFRA 1982; TMP of Wise Guys Holdings, LLC (WGH); case pending for 2007 year.
- First FPAA mailed March 18, 2011 to TMP at Manassas VA and Great Falls VA; certified mail to Manassas and Great Falls; notices indicate dates and recipients.
- Second FPAA mailed December 6, 2011 to TMP at Great Falls VA and to TMP's representative; lacks certified mail indicators and uses different contact details.
- Petition filed March 12, 2012; petitioner argues timely filing in response to second FPAA; no claim of fraud/misrepresentation tied to second FPAA.
- Court must assess whether second FPAA is valid under 6223(f); if invalid, petition’s timeliness rests on first FPAA; if not timely, TEFRA jurisdiction fails; precedent cites 90/60/150-day timing and related deficiency-notice framework.
- The court ultimately holds the second FPAA invalid under 6223(f) absent fraud/misrepresentation, and the petition was not timely to the first FPAA, lacking jurisdiction to decide the case; dismisses accordingly.
- Notes: The court discusses timing windows and analogies to deficiency notices (McCue; Stamm; Lone Star Life) and clarifies that jurisdiction turns on a timely petition to a valid FPAA.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the second FPAA valid under 6223(f) to support a petition | Petitioner relied on second FPAA as valid | Second FPAA invalid absent fraud/misrepresentation | Second FPAA invalid; disregarded |
| Is the petition timely after a valid FPAA | Timeliness asserted via second FPAA | Timeliness governed by first FPAA; petition not timely | Petition not timely to first FPAA; jurisdiction lacking |
| Does invalid second FPAA cure jurisdictional defect | Equitable consideration should salvage jurisdiction | No; jurisdiction hinges on valid FPAA | No cure; proceed to dismissal |
| Does TEFRA jurisdiction exist when filing occurs after 150-day window | N/A or argues timely under second FPAA | TEFRA requires timely petition to a valid FPAA | Lack of jurisdiction; case dismissed |
Key Cases Cited
- Barbados #6, Ltd. v. Commissioner, 85 T.C. 900 (1985) (timeliness framework for notices and petitions under TEFRA and deficiency-like rules)
- McCue v. Commissioner, 1 T.C. 986 (1943) (second deficiency notice invalid when first timely petitioned, under predecessor rule)
- Stamm Int'l Corp. v. Commissioner, 84 T.C. 248 (1985) (jurisdiction requires a valid petition based on a valid FPAA)
- Lone Star Life Ins. Co. v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1997-465 (1997) (second notice invalid when timely petitioned to first notice; jurisdiction denied)
- PCMG Trading Partners XX, L.P. v. Commissioner, 131 T.C. 206 (2008) (timing of 90-day/60-day periods after FPAA for TEFRA petitions)