Ezel / IRS Rulings / 1033037
Chief Counsel Advice 1033037 Released August 20, 2010 Advice

CCA 1033037: A separate TEFRA proceeding was probably unnecessary

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 addressed whether Exam needed to conduct a TEFRA partnership proceeding for each year in which excessive deductions were claimed. The advice said that such a proceeding would determine the amount, character, and allocation of partnership debt, including whether each partner guaranteed the debt for that year. Those determinations would then bind the affected-item notices of deficiency that limit a loss to basis or to the amount at risk. The memorandum concluded that the additional proceeding was probably unnecessary, while leaving the decision to Exam.

Ruling snapshot

  • Question: Was an additional TEFRA partnership proceeding needed to determine the affected items?
  • Outcome: advice given
  • Key authorities: IRC § 6231

Full text (IRS public release)

ID: CCA_2010072113351537 Number: 201033037
Release Date: 8/20/2010
Office: ----------
UILC: 6231.05-00

From: -------------------
Sent: Wednesday, July 21, 2010 1:35:18 PM
To: --------------------
Cc: -------------------------------------
Subject: RE: TEFRA Question

That's up to Exam. But its probably unnecessary since we would have to conduct a TEFRA partnership
proceeding for any year in which they took excessive deductions to determine the amount, character and
allocation of partnership debt, and whether it was guaranteed by each respective partner in that year.
These determinations would then be binding for purposes of generating any affected item notices of
deficiency limiting loss to basis or at risk for that particular year.

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.