Ezel / IRS Rulings / 1032040
Chief Counsel Advice 1032040 Released August 13, 2010 Advice

CCA 1032040: Notice of a partnership adjustment should go to partners with open statutes

Apply this to your situation

This page covers one taxpayer's ruling from 2010, 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 2010
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 resolved one taxpayer's situation on its specific facts, 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 Advice addresses a partnership proceeding in which the assessment period had expired for some partners but remained open for others. It advises that the IRS should link and issue the final partnership administrative adjustment to the tax matters partner and partners with open statutes, while identifying or delinking partners with barred statutes to prevent an inadvertent assessment. For indirect partners with open statutes, notice to the pass-through partners could be sufficient, with direct notice also available under section 6223(c)(3).

Ruling snapshot

  • Question: Which partners should receive or be linked to a final partnership administrative adjustment when statutes of limitation differ?
  • Outcome: Advice given
  • Key authorities: IRC §§ 6223(a), (c), and (h), and 6230(f).

Full text (IRS public release)

ID: CCA_2010070211351937 Number: 201032040
Release Date: 8/13/2010
Office: ----------
UILC: 6223.00-00

From: -------------------
Sent: Friday, July 02, 2010 11:35:21 AM
To: --------------------
Cc: -----------
Subject: RE: Request for consultation

---------If the statute has expired for some partners and not others, you only need to link and issue FPAA's
to the TMP and partners with open statutes. The partners with barred statutes should be delinked or
otherwise identified by the Service Center as having barred statutes so that they are not inadvertently
assessed based on the ultimate resolution of the FPAA by default or court decision.

Since the three partners with open statutes are indirect partners, FPAA's to the pass-thru partners
through whom they hold their interests would be sufficient under section 6223(a), (c) and (h) and section
6230(f). Under section 6223(c)(3) you can also send these three partners direct notice of the FPAA. See
Murphy v. Commissioner. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Get today's answer for your situation

You just read what the IRS ruled for one taxpayer in 2010, and it can't be cited as precedent. Ezel checks the current Internal Revenue Code and IRS guidance and answers your specific situation, with citations.

Opens in Ezel Pro. Every answer cites the authority it relies on.