Ezel / IRS Rulings / 200914024

CCA 200914024: The parent alone needed to sign the consolidated group's consent

Number
200914024
Outcome
Advice
Document type
Chief Counsel Advice
IRS subject
Extension by Agreement
Topics
Procedure, penalties, and administration
Code sections
§ 6229
Ruling dated
July 15, 2008
Publicly released
April 3, 2009
Source
View Official PDF

Apply this to your situation

This page covers legal advice the IRS Office of Chief Counsel wrote for IRS staff, issued in 2009, which can't be cited as precedent. Ask about your situation and see what the current Code and IRS guidance say, with citations.

Currency note: this determination was released in 2009
Statutory amendments, regulation changes, court decisions, or later IRS guidance may have changed the analysis since then. Treat this page as historical context, not current tax advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule, threshold, or position mentioned here.
Not precedent. Under 26 U.S.C. § 6110(k)(3), this written determination may not be used or cited as precedent. It is advice from the IRS Office of Chief Counsel to IRS personnel on the facts they presented, and identifying details were redacted by the IRS before release. The official IRS release (linked on this page as a PDF) is the authoritative source.
About this page: The plain-English summary and ruling snapshot below were written by Ezel based on the official IRS release. The full text is the IRS's own document.
View official IRS release (PDF)

Plain-English summary

Chief Counsel advised that only the parent needed to sign a limitations-period consent for a consolidated liability. The IRS generally assessed that liability against the parent, and a subsidiary lacked authority to sign for the parent. If the parent remained solvent, the existing consent was sufficient. Counsel also recommended sending a generic tax-matters-partner notice and final partnership administrative adjustments directly to indirect partners. Any individual consents should be obtained from the ultimate indirect partners on Forms 872-i.

Ruling snapshot

  • Question: Who needed to sign the consolidated-liability consent, and how should notices and consents be handled for indirect partners?
  • Outcome: Advice given: rely on the solvent parent's consent, send notices directly to indirect partners, and obtain any partner-specific consents on Forms 872-i.
  • Key authorities: IRC § 6229; Form 872-i.

Full text (IRS public release)

ID: CCA-310206-09 Number: 200914024
Release Date: 4/3/2009
Office: --------------
UILC: 6229.02-00

From: -------------------
Sent: Tue 7/15/2008 2:23 PM
To: ------------------------
Cc: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: RE: Follow-up Questions - 872-I and TMP

Only the parent need sign. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------. Generally we only assess the consolidated liability against the parent in any event and the sub has no authority to sign for the parent. So as long as the parent is solvent, we should be O.K. with the existing consent.

------------------------------------------. We should just send a generic TMP notice and FPAA's directly to the indirect partners. Any consents should be secured directly from the ultimate indirect partners using Forms 872-i. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------

What does the Code say today, for your facts?

This advice was written for IRS staff and cannot be cited. Ezel checks the current Internal Revenue Code and IRS guidance against your situation, with citations.

Opens in Ezel Pro.

  • Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
  • Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
  • Chat, drafting and research in one workspace