Ezel / IRS Rulings / 200920045

CCA 200920045: A related proceeding generally had to end before the FPAA and affected-item notice

Number
200920045
Outcome
Advice
Document type
Chief Counsel Advice
IRS subject
Tax Treatment Determined At Partnership Level
Topics
Procedure, penalties, and administration
Code sections
§ 6221
Ruling dated
April 6, 2009
Publicly released
May 15, 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 addressed when the IRS should issue an FPAA and affected-item notice to a redacted party connected with another redacted partnership proceeding. Counsel advised waiting until that proceeding ended because the party would be bound by its determinations under Sente Investment Club v. Commissioner. The party should be treated like any other partner and receive the affected-item notice only after the proceeding was complete. Counsel cited GAF v. Commissioner for that timing. An exception could apply if the proceeding involved independent items that required immediate determination.

Ruling snapshot

  • Question: When should the IRS issue the related FPAA and affected-item notice while another partnership proceeding remains pending?
  • Outcome: Advice given: wait until the related proceeding ends unless independent items must be determined immediately.
  • Key authorities: IRC § 6221; Sente Investment Club v. Commissioner, 95 T.C. 243 (1990); GAF v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 519 (2000).

Full text (IRS public release)

ID: CCA_2009040608464437 Number: 200920045
Release Date: 5/15/2009
Office: --------------
UILC: 6221.00-00

From: -------------------
Sent: Monday, April 06, 2009 8:46:46 AM
To: -------------------
Cc: -----------
Subject: RE:

Yes, but the FPAA to X should not be issued until the Y proceeding is over. Under Sente Investment Club v. Commissioner, 95 T.C. 243 (1990), X will be bound by the determinations in the Y proceeding. X should be treated just like any other partner in this regard and should not get its affected item notice until after the Y proceeding is over (GAF v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 519 (2000)), unless Y has independent items that need to be determined now.

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