Ezel / IRS Rulings / 200916030

CCA 200916030: Partnership litigation follows Tax Court and CCDM procedures

Number
200916030
Outcome
Advice
Document type
Chief Counsel Advice
IRS subject
Judicial Review of Final Partnership Administrative Adjustments
Topics
Procedure, penalties, and administration
Code sections
§ 6226
Ruling dated
February 23, 2009
Publicly released
April 17, 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 responded to a question about a litigation checklist for TEFRA partnership cases. Counsel generally directed attorneys to Tax Court Rules 240 through 251 and the relevant Chief Counsel Directives Manual provisions. Once a valid petition exists, the basic procedures are the same, but papers must also be served on the tax matters partner when another partner filed the petition. Settlements and decisions use different forms under Tax Court Rule 248 and the manual's exhibits, while nonparticipating partners are treated as third parties for discovery.

Ruling snapshot

  • Question: What procedures should attorneys follow in TEFRA partnership litigation, and would a separate litigation checklist help?
  • Outcome: Advice given: use the Tax Court and CCDM procedures, with additional service and party-treatment rules for partnership cases.
  • Key authorities: IRC § 6226; Tax Court Rules 240-251, including Rule 248; CCDM provisions and exhibits.

Full text (IRS public release)

ID: CCA_2009022315170237 Number: 200916030
Release Date: 4/17/2009
Office: --------------
UILC: 6226.00-00

From: -------------------
Sent: Monday, February 23, 2009 3:17:04 PM
To: --------------------
Cc: ------------------------------------------------------------ Subject: RE: TEFRA Partnership Proceedings

Exam has jurisdictional checksheets but there is none for litigation.

I generally refer attorneys to the Tax Court Rule 240 - 251 and the CCDM manual provisions.

I am not sure how useful a litigation checksheet would be. Assuming that we have a valid petition the procedures are the same. The main difference is that we have to serve everything on the TMP in addition to the partner filing the petition (assuming that the petitioning partner is not the TMP). The settlements and decisions look different and are covered by T.C. Rule 248 and the CCDM exhibits. The nonparticipating partners are treated as third parties for discovery purposes.

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