CCA 200913024: Omitting the partnership's address did not invalidate a successor designation

Plain-English summary

Chief Counsel reviewed a successor tax matters partner designation that omitted the partnership's address. Assuming the original designation was correct, all other regulatory requirements were met, and the clerical error caused no factual dispute or confusion, the omission should not invalidate the successor designation. The advice applies a substantial-compliance doctrine for clerical errors and cites Chomp v. Commissioner for the proposition that failure to follow every regulatory detail may not be fatal when the partnership intended the specified designation.

Ruling snapshot

• Question: Did omission of the partnership's address invalidate a successor tax matters partner designation?
• Outcome: Advice given: the designation could remain valid under substantial compliance if the stated assumptions held.
• Key authorities: Treas. Reg. § 301.6231(a)(7)-1; Chomp v. Commissioner.

Full text (IRS public release)

ID: CCA-714943-08 Number: 200913024
Release Date: 3/27/2009
Office: --------------
UILC: 6231.07-00

From: -------------------
Sent: Mon 7/14/2008 9:43 AM
To: ----------------------
Cc: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: RE: TMP designation

Assuming that all other requirements for designation were met under Treas. Reg. 301.6231(a)(7)-1, that the original designation was correct, and that there in fact is not factual issue or confusion caused by this clerical error, the failing to included the address of the partnership should not affected the validity of the successor designation. The designation may be considered valid under the "substantial compliance doctrine" related to clerical errors and Chomp v. Commissioner which indicates that failure to comply with the regulations may not be fatal if the partnership in fact intended to make the specified designation