Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Bedrosian v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

October 8, 2019

John C. Bedrosian; Judith D. Bedrosian, Petitioners-Appellants,
v.
Commissioner of Internal Revenue, Respondent-Appellee.

          Argued and Submitted August 15, 2019 Pasadena, California

          Appeal from a Decision of the United States Tax Court Tax Ct. No. 12341-05

          Steve R. Mather (argued), Mather Turanchik Law Corp., Los Angeles, California; Richard E. Hodge, Malibu, California; for Petitioners-Appellants.

          Deborah K. Snyder (argued), Gilbert S. Rothenberg, and Andrew M. Weiner, Attorneys; Travis A. Greaves, Deputy Assistant Attorney General; Richard E. Zuckerman, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General; Tax Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C.; for Respondent-Appellee.

          Before: Mary M. Schroeder and Susan P. Graber, Circuit Judges, and Joan H. Lefkow, [*] District Judge.

         SUMMARY[**]

         Tax

         The panel affirmed the Tax Court's dismissal, for lack of jurisdiction, of taxpayers' petition challenging adjustments to a Final Partnership Administrative Adjustment involving taxpayers' partnership.

         The Internal Revenue Service initiated a partnership proceeding that resulted in administrative adjustments to a partnership tax return and disallowances of certain deductions. The IRS simultaneously pursued a deficiency proceeding against the partners (taxpayers) individually, to enforce the partnership-level adjustments. In a prior appeal challenging the results of the partnership proceedings, this court affirmed. In taxpayers' challenge to the partnership adjustments asserted in the deficiency proceeding, the Tax Court dismissed the petition as untimely because taxpayers should have brought their challenges in the partnership-level proceedings.

         Joining every other circuit court to consider this issue, the panel held that a challenge to the timeliness of a Final Partnership Administrative Adjustment must be raised in the partnership-level proceeding itself, and that failure to do so results in a forfeiture of the argument. The panel therefore affirmed the Tax Court's dismissal of taxpayers' petition for lack of jurisdiction.

          OPINION

          SCHROEDER, CIRCUIT JUDGE

         Taxpayers John and Judith Bedrosian seek to challenge the Internal Revenue Service's (IRS's) disallowance of deductions that they claimed on their 1999 and 2000 returns. Because the deductions were generated by a partnership entity, the IRS initiated a partnership proceeding that resulted in administrative adjustments to the partnership's return and corresponding disallowances. The IRS simultaneously pursued a deficiency proceeding against the Bedrosians individually to enforce the partnership-level adjustments.

         In an earlier appeal, we upheld the validity of the partnership proceeding and the adjustments made therein. Bedrosian v. Comm'r, 358 Fed.Appx. 868, 869 (9th Cir. 2009) (unpublished). In what is essentially a collateral attack on the partnership proceeding, taxpayers now challenge as untimely the partnership-level adjustments the IRS asserted in the deficiency proceeding. The Tax Court dismissed the action for lack of jurisdiction because challenges to the adjustments should have been brought in the partnership proceeding.

         On appeal, the Bedrosians argue that there was no valid partnership proceeding in which they could have challenged the disallowances, because the partnership proceeding was initiated after the relevant statute of limitations had expired and was therefore a legal nullity. We have not had occasion to address this issue, but other circuit courts uniformly have held that a challenge to the timeliness of a partnership proceeding must be raised in the partnership proceeding itself and that ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.