An appropriate order and order of dismissal for lack of jurisdiction will be entered.
BUCH,
On October 10, 2000, FX Trading 2013 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 177">*178 Co., LLC (FX Trading), and Bricolage Capital, LLC (Bricolage), formed Taurus FX Partners, LLC (Taurus), a limited liability company that was treated as a partnership for Federal income tax purposes. Bricolage was the managing member and tax matters partner (TMP) of Taurus, and FX Trading was a notice partner of Taurus. Mr. Postma was the sole member of FX Trading, thus rendering it a disregarded entity for Federal income tax purposes. On December 1, 2000, Mr. Postma assigned his interest in FX Trading to The Littlefield Group, Inc. (Littlefield), a subchapter S corporation of which he was the sole shareholder.
*170 Taurus timely filed its 2000 Form 1065, U.S. Return of Partnership Income, which included the following addresses:
For the partnership: Taurus FX Partners, LLC c/o Bricolage Capital, LLC 570 Lexington Avenue 25th Floor New York, NY 10022
For the TMP: Bricolage Capital, LLC 570 Lexington Avenue 25th Floor New York, NY 10022
For FX Trading: FX Trading Company, LLC c/o Richard Postma 20 Monroe NW Grand Rappids [sic], MI 49503.
On July 28, 2003, the Commissioner issued notices of beginning of administrative proceeding (NBAPs) regarding Taurus' 2000 taxable year. 2 The NBAPs were issued to FX Trading 2013 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 177">*179 and separately to Richard Postma at the same Grand Rapids address (albeit without the typo).
*171 During the course of the examination the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) dealt directly with Mr. Postma on some occasions. For example, in February 2004 the IRS sent Mr. Postma a Form 4564, Information Document Request, relating to his investment in Taurus. In January 2005 Mr. Postma signed a Form 872-P, Consent to Extend the Time to Assess Tax Attributable to Partnership Items, for Taurus' 2000 taxable year. Mr. Postma's representative included in a cover letter to the Form 872-P that "Mr. Postma has never been officially designated as a tax matters partner or managing member" and so he signed the Form 872-P on both the line for the TMP and on the line for the "Authorized Person".
On October 14, 2005, Bricolage filed a voluntary chapter 11 bankruptcy petition. 3 The Commissioner filed a proof of 2013 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 177">*180 claim in that proceeding.
On November 16, 2010, the Commissioner issued an FPAA for Taurus' 2000 taxable year. Copies of the FPAA were sent to the following addresses by certified mail: *172 1. Tax Matters Partner Taurus FX Partners, LLC 570 Lexington Avenue, 25th Floor New York, NY 10022 2. Bricolage Capital, LLC Tax Matters Partner Taurus FX Partners, LLC 5701 [sic] Lexington Avenue, 25th Floor New York, NY 10022 3. Bricolage Capital, LLC One Bryant Park, Suite 37C New York, NY 10036 4. FX Trading Company, LLC 20 Monroe Northwest, Suite 450 Grand Rapids, MI 49503 5. Caballo, Inc. 570 Lexington Avenue, 25th Floor New York, NY 10022 6. Stillwater, Inc. 250 2013 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 177">*181 Greenwich Street, 34th Floor New York, NY 10007
On March 28, 2012 (more than 150 days after FPAA 1 was mailed), Mr. Postma filed a petition in this Court as a partner other than the tax matters partner. 5 Shortly thereafter, Mr. Postma filed a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction and a memorandum of law in support of his 2013 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 177">*182 motion. Mr. Postma asserts that the FPAA is invalid for a variety of reasons: (1) an FPAA was not mailed to him at his last known address, (2) an FPAA was not mailed to the addresses listed on Taurus' 2001 partnership return, (3) he did not receive an NBAP for Taurus' 2000 taxable year, and (4) the FPAA was issued after the period of limitations had expired. Respondent filed his own motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction asserting that the Court lacks jurisdiction in this case because the petition disputing the adjustments in the FPAA was not timely filed. Of course, respondent's motion is *174 predicated on the notion that the FPAA was valid and thus began the running of the period within which to file a petition. Effectively, the only issue for the Court to resolve is whether the FPAA was valid.
The IRS must issue an FPAA if it decides to make adjustments to partnership items claimed on a partnership return. 6 The FPAA is the jurisdictional notice that 2013 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 177">*183 permits a partner to file a petition challenging the IRS' adjustments. 7
The TEFRA 8 statutory and regulatory scheme sets forth, in general terms, who is entitled to notice and how one goes about updating the list of who is entitled to notice. 9 The IRS must send an FPAA to the notice partners, 10 but it is the notice to the TMP that begins the running of the period within which to file a petition. 11 The notice to the TMP may be addressed to the TMP by name at *175 the TMP's address, or a "generic notice" addressed to "Tax Matters Partner" may be sent to the partnership address as shown on the return for the year at issue. 122013 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 177">*184 The IRS then must send a copy of the FPAA to the notice partners who are identified on the partnership return for the year at issue. 13
The last known address rules applicable to notices of deficiency 14 do not apply to FPAAs. 15 (i) Identify the partnership, each partner for whom information is supplied, and the person supplying the information by name, address, and taxpayer identification number; (ii) Explain that the statement is furnished to correct or supplement earlier information with respect to the partners in the partnership; (iii) Specify the taxable year to which the information relates; (iv) Set out the corrected or additional information; and (v) Be signed by the person supplying the information. 17
With these fundamental rules in mind, we turn to the question of where the IRS was required to mail the FPAA in this case.
As previously stated, it is sufficient for the IRS to mail a generic FPAA. 18 By mailing an FPAA addressed to "Tax Matters Partner, Taurus FX Partners, LLC" at the partnership address shown on the taxable year 2000 partnership return, the IRS fulfilled its obligation to notify the TMP.
*177 Mr. Postma alleges that Taurus filed a 2001 return showing a new address and that the IRS should have mailed the FPAA to that address. The 2001 partnership return did not satisfy the requirements of the regulations to update 2013 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 177">*186 any address for the 2000 taxable year. The 2001 return did not explain that it was a statement furnished to correct or supplement information for 2000 and did not specify that the information related to 2000, nor did it relate to the 2000 year simply because box E included the date the business started of October 10, 2000. 19Although the Commissioner may use other information in its possession, he is not obligated to search his records for information that is not expressly furnished on the 2000 return or pursuant to the regulations. 20 Thus, notice to the TMP at the partnership address as shown on the year 2000 Form 1065 was sufficient.
The notices that were mailed to Bricolage are irrelevant to the TMP notice issue because at the time the notices were issued, Bricolage was no longer the TMP. Bricolage 2013 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 177">*187 filed a bankruptcy petition on October 14, 2005. A partner's status as tax matters partner is terminated when it becomes a debtor in a *178 bankruptcy proceeding, and thus Bricolage was no longer the TMP when the FPAA was issued. 21 Note, however, that a copy of the FPAA was mailed to Bricolage at the One Bryant Park address that Bricolage used on its 2008 partnership return, and that envelope was not returned to respondent. Thus, it appears Bricolage received actual notice of the FPAA. 22
The partnership return in the record identified only one notice partner other than Bricolage: FX Trading. The IRS mailed a copy of the FPAA to FX Trading at the address shown on the Schedule K-1 for FX Trading that was included with the year 2000 partnership return that Taurus filed. 23 As previously stated, the IRS may use the address as shown on the partnership return unless that address was *179 updated in accordance 2013 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 177">*188 with the regulations under
The partnership return did not identify Mr. Postma as a notice partner. He is identified on the Schedule K-1 as the contact person for FX Trading but not as a notice partner in his own right.
Moreover, at no time did anyone identify Mr. Postma as an indirect partner in the manner required by
It may be helpful to make clear the distinction between permissive and prescriptive terms.
In contrast to the prescriptive terms just described, the regulation further provides that the IRS "may use other information in its possession". 29 "May" is *181 permissive; it does not create an obligation. 302013 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 177">*191 If the plain language is not clear enough, the regulation goes on to provide that "the Service is not obligated to search its records for information not expressly furnished under this section." 31
Mr. Postma insists that he was a notice partner and that the IRS received information identifying him as such. Mr. Postma asserts that his responses to information document requests and respondent's communications directly with him notified respondent that he was a notice partner and that the IRS accepted him as such because it continued to communicate directly with him: It sent him an NBAP for 2001, and it requested that he sign the Form 872-P extending the period of limitations on assessment for Taurus. While the IRS was certainly able to use this information to provide notice to Mr. Postma, it was under no obligation to do so. If Mr. Postma wanted to receive notice under
A few observations may help to explain why the TEFRA notice rules differ from those that apply to deficiency procedures. First, unlike a corporate or an *182 individual income 2013 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 177">*192 tax proceeding where the examination is directly of the taxpayer's return, a TEFRA proceeding is conducted at the partnership level, and yet the partnership is not liable for the tax. The partners who are ultimately liable for the tax can change from year to year. Thus, adjustments resulting from a partnership proceeding relating to one taxable year may affect a completely different set of taxpayers from those who owned an interest in that same partnership in another year. As a result, simply updating address information from a subsequent year's return as is done in deficiency procedures puts the IRS in peril of notifying the wrong people. In TEFRA cases, it is the service centers that are generally responsible for issuing notices. 322013 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 177">*193 Because partnerships may involve multitiered structures and passthrough partners, the IRS must often trace through this structure to reach the ultimate taxpayers. Again, it is the service center personnel who handle this work. 33
Indeed, Taurus provides a clear example of the complexity described above. Looking only at the face of the partnership return and the attached Schedules K-1 *183 in the record, only Taurus, Bricolage, and FX Trading are identified. Although Mr. Postma is shown on the FX Trading Schedule K-1, he is named only in an "in care of" capacity. The Schedule K-1 identifies FX Trading as a limited liability company, which could have only one member or members numbering in the thousands. From the face of the partnership return, the IRS has no way to identify that FX Trading is a single-member LLC and a disregarded entity. In fact, from the partnership return, the IRS would have no way to identify the fact that Mr. Postma, as of the close of the taxable year, did not own an interest in FX Trading; it was owned by Littlefield. Mr. Postma chose to create FX Trading to be a partner in Taurus rather than to personally be a partner in Taurus. Mr. Postma also assigned his interest in FX Trading to Littlefield before the 2000 partnership return was filed, thereby creating yet another layer between himself 2013 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 177">*194 and Taurus. In the context of substantive tax matters, the Supreme Court "has observed repeatedly that, while a taxpayer is free to organize his affairs as he chooses, nevertheless, once having done so, he must accept the tax consequences of his choice, whether contemplated or not * * * and may not enjoy the benefit of some other route he might have chosen to follow but did not." 34 This proposition should *184 be no less true in procedural matters. Mr. Postma chose his structure, and he must meet the procedural burdens that accompany his choice.
Mr. Postma also challenges the validity of the FPAA because he contends that he did not receive an NBAP for the examination of the 2000 Taurus return.
With respect to Mr. Postma's assertion that the FPAA was invalid because it was issued after the period of limitations on assessment had expired, we note briefly that (1) the assertion of untimeliness of the FPAA is an affirmative defense 362013 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 177">*196 that must be raised in a timely filed petition in response to the FPAA or else it is waived, 37 (2) the Court must have jurisdiction in a case before it may evaluate an affirmative defense, 38 and (3) the issuance of an FPAA beyond the period of limitations does not affect its validity. 39
The law on each of the issues Mr. Postma raises is well settled. The IRS must provide notice to the partners as identified in the partnership return. It did. If Mr. Postma wanted notice to go elsewhere, he was required to notify the IRS in accordance with the regulations under
To reflect the foregoing,
1. Unless otherwise indicated, all section references are to the Internal Revenue Code in effect for the year in issue, and all Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure.↩
2. On that same date, the Commissioner issued NBAPs for Taurus' 2001 taxable year. Mr. Postma alleges that he received only the NBAP that was addressed to him, personally, for 2001. The record reflects that four NBAPs were issued on July 28, 2003, to the Grand Rapids address, two each for 2000 and 2001.↩
3. Filing the petition in bankruptcy had the dual effect of converting Bricolage's partnership items to nonpartnership items, thus removing Bricolage from any TEFRA proceeding, and terminating Bricolage's status as TMP.
4. The FPAA sent to Bricolage at 5701 Lexington Avenue was likely returned because of a typographical error in the address. The One Bryant Park address was known to respondent through Bricolage's 2008 partnership return.↩
5. A notice partner may file a petition during the 60-day period following the 90-day period during which a tax matters partner may file a petition.
6.
7.
8. TEFRA refers to the unified partnership audit and litigation procedures of the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982,
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19. The Court takes judicial notice of the 2000 Instructions for Form 1065, which state: "If the partnership changes its mailing address after filing its return, it can notify the IRS by filing Form 8822, Change of Address."
20.
21.
22.
23. There is a discrepancy between the address for FX Trading shown on the partnership return and the address to which the FPAA was mailed; the FPAA identified a suite number for FX Trading that was not referenced in the partnership return. Neither party alleges that this difference was material, and the Court finds that it was immaterial.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32. The campus TEFRA function operates out of IRS service centers.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
38.
39.
