Ezel / IRS Rulings / 201125025

CCA 201125025: FPAAs generally went to notice partners, with an exception for identified non-notice partners

Number
201125025
Outcome
Advice
Document type
Chief Counsel Advice
IRS subject
Notice to Partners of Proceedings
Topics
Procedure, penalties, and administration
Code sections
§ 6223
Ruling dated
May 19, 2011
Publicly released
June 24, 2011
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 2011, 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 2011
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 Advice addressed which partners should receive a final partnership administrative adjustment. It stated that the IRS should issue FPAAs only to notice partners, except that it could issue them to non-notice partners who had identified themselves under IRC § 6223(c)(3) and, when the partnership had more than 100 partners, held at least a one-percent partnership interest. The advice also stated that an FPAA supplanted the purported administrative adjustment request, so the validity of the request's signature did not matter.

Ruling snapshot

  • Question: Which partners should receive an FPAA, and did the signature on the purported AAR matter?
  • Outcome: Advice given.
  • Key authorities: IRC § 6223(c)(3).

Full text (IRS public release)

ID: CCA_2011051913404437 Number: 201125025
Release Date: 6/24/2011
Office: ---------
UILC: 6223.00-00

From: --------------------
Sent: Thursday, May 19, 2011 1:40:49 PM
To: --------------------
Cc: -------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: RE: AAR 60 day Objection letter and notice partners ---------

We should issue FPAA's only to notice partners. We should issue FPAA's to non-notice partners only if they have identified themselves in accordance with section 6223(c)(3) and, if the partnership has more than 100 partners, they have a one percent partnership interest or more.

The FPAA supplants the purported AAR so it doesn't make any difference whether the AAR is validly signed.

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