Chief Counsel Advice 201614034 Released April 1, 2016 Advice

Partnership losses are computational adjustments, but sham-related fees need partner-level action

Apply this to your situation

This page covers one taxpayer's ruling from 2016, which can't be cited as precedent. Ezel answers your situation under the current Code and IRS guidance, with citations.

Currency note: this determination was released in 2016
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 addressed the procedural treatment of losses and professional fees after a partnership-level examination. Disallowing capital and ordinary losses reported by the partnership is a computational adjustment that does not require separate partner-level determinations, and the same treatment applies to carryovers of those losses. If the partnership was determined to be a sham, however, professional fees are affected items that likely require a separate affected-item statutory notice of deficiency.

Ruling snapshot

  • Question: Which adjustments can be made computationally, and which require a partner-level affected-item notice?
  • Outcome: Advice given: partnership losses and carryovers are computational, while sham-related professional fees likely require a separate notice.
  • Key authorities: IRC § 6231; Bedrosian v. Commissioner, 144 T.C. 152 (2015); Domulewicz v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2010-77

Full text (IRS public release)

ID:          CCA_2016030108405707
UILC:        6231.05-00

Number: 201614034
Release Date: 4/1/2016
From:
Sent: Tuesday, March 01, 2016 8:40:57 AM
To:
Cc:
Bcc:
Subject: RE: TEFRA question


HI -------,

I agree about the disallowance of the capital losses and ordinary losses reported by the
partnership being computational adjustments that do not require partner level
determinations. This includes any carryovers of those amounts.

I also agree that, if the partnership was determined to be a sham, the professional fees
are affected items likely requiring an affected item SND. Bedrosian v. Comm’r, 144 T.C.
152, 159-61 (2015); Domulewicz v. Comm’r, T.C. Memo. 2010-77.


Thanks,
-------

---------------
---------------------
-------------
-------------------------------
---------------------------

Get today's answer for your situation

You just read what the IRS ruled for one taxpayer in 2016, 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.