T.C. Memo. 2009-193
UNITED STATES TAX COURT
WILMINGTON PARTNERS L.P., WILMINGTON MANAGEMENT CORP.,
TAX MATTERS PARTNER, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER
OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
Docket No. 15098-06. Filed August 26, 2009.
Roger J. Jones, Kim Marie K. Boylan, Andrew R. Roberson, and
Sarah S. Sandusky, for petitioner.
Daniel A. Rosen, for respondent.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
KROUPA, Judge: This case is a partnership-level proceeding
subject to the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982
(TEFRA), Pub. L. 97-248, sec. 402, 96 Stat. 648. The partnership
at issue is Wilmington Partners, L.P. (Wilmington). The years at
- 2 -
issue are two short taxable years that Wilmington reported for
1999 (respectively, 1999-1 and 1999-2).
Respondent issued Wilmington a notice of final partnership
administrative adjustment (1999 FPAA) for the subject years.1
The 1999 FPAA determined that the basis of a note (1993 Reset
Note) that Wilmington received as a contribution in 1993 was zero
rather than $550 million as Wilmington reported for each subject
year. The 1999 FPAA determined no other adjustment for 1999-1.
The 1999 FPAA determined other adjustments for 1999-2.
The Court previously decided in an unpublished order that
respondent may not assess as to 1999-2 any income tax related to
Wilmington because the applicable limitations period had expired.
The Court stated that Bakersfield Energy Partners, LP v.
Commissioner, 128 T.C. 203 (2007), affd. 568 F.3d 767 (9th Cir.
2009), controlled our decision, and the Court rejected the
Commissioner’s invitation to overrule Bakersfield. Petitioner
now moves to dismiss this case for lack of jurisdiction.
Petitioner argues that the basis adjustment cannot be made
in either year because respondent has not issued Wilmington an
FPAA for 1993; i.e., the year in which the 1993 Reset Note was
contributed to Wilmington. Petitioner concludes that the 1999
FPAA is invalid (and the Court lacks jurisdiction) because all
1
The relevant portions of the 1999 FPAA are contained in an
appendix.
- 3 -
adjustments in the 1999 FPAA stem from the basis adjustment.
Petitioner argues alternatively that the Court lacks jurisdiction
over 1999-1 because the 1999 FPAA does not adjust any partnership
item that subtitle A required Wilmington to take into account for
1999-1.2
We disagree. We hold that the 1999 FPAA is valid and that
we have jurisdiction over each year. We shall deny petitioner’s
motion to dismiss.
Background
I. Preface
We derive the facts set forth in this background section
from the pleadings and from the parties’ motion papers. We treat
the facts as true solely for purposes of deciding petitioner’s
motion, not as findings of fact for this case. Cf. Samueli v.
Commissioner, 132 T.C. , (Mar. 16, 2009) (slip op. at 4);
P & X Mkts., Inc. v. Commissioner, 106 T.C. 441, 442 n.2 (1996),
affd. without published opinion 139 F.3d 907 (9th Cir. 1998).
II. 1993 Transactions
Wilmington was formed as a limited partnership in 1993 as
part of a financing transaction that created an influx of capital
for Bausch and Lomb, Inc. Wilmington’s partners included B&L
2
Subtitle and section references are to the Internal Revenue
Code, unless otherwise indicated.
- 4 -
International Holdings Corp. (BLIHC), among various related and
unrelated partners.
BLIHC contributed the 1993 Reset Note to Wilmington in 1993,
and Wilmington treated the 1993 Reset Note as an asset with a
basis and fair market value of $550 million. Wilmington’s basis
in the 1993 Reset Note was not affected by any event that
occurred after its contribution to Wilmington until the start of
1999-2.
III. 1993 Audit
Respondent audited Wilmington’s 1993 taxable year. The
audit closed seven years later with respondent’s issuance of a
“No Adjustments Letter.” The letter stated that respondent was
making no adjustments to Wilmington’s 1993 taxable year and would
not issue Wilmington an FPAA for that year. Respondent has not
issued an FPAA to Wilmington for 1993.
IV. 1999 Transactions
Wilmington treated certain restructuring transactions
occurring on June 4, 1999, as a partnership termination under
section 708(b)(1)(B). Wilmington accordingly reported that it
had two short taxable years during 1999. The first short taxable
year, 1999-1, ended June 4, 1999. The second short taxable year,
1999-2, ended December 25, 1999. Wilmington filed a separate
Federal partnership return (partnership return) for each short
taxable year.
- 5 -
The June 4 restructuring transactions included one partner
in Wilmington (Bobcat Partners L.P.) selling its partnership
interest and ceasing to be a partner. In addition, Wilmington
transferred the assets of an operating business to BLIHC to
retire a portion of BLIHC’s partnership interest in Wilmington.
Wilmington reported the 1993 Reset Note had a $550 million value
as of the beginning and the end of 1999-1.
BLIHC sold a portion of its remaining partnership interest
in Wilmington in 1999-2. Wilmington exchanged the 1993 Reset
Note for two replacement notes with a collective $550 million
face amount. Wilmington transferred one replacement note and
cash to Charles River Partners L.P. in complete liquidation of
its interest in Wilmington, and Wilmington made a section 754
election as to the transaction. Later in 1999-2, Wilmington sold
one of its active businesses and allocated portions of the sales
price to goodwill and to other intangibles. Wilmington reported
the 1993 Reset Note had a $550 million value as of the beginning
of 1999-2. Wilmington also reported the values of the
replacement notes as of the applicable dates.
V. 1999 FPAA
The 1999 FPAA determined that the value of the 1993 Reset
Note was zero for each year and adjusted the 1993 Reset Note’s
basis accordingly. The FPAA made no other adjustment for 1999-1.
The FPAA made three other adjustments for 1999-2. The 1999-2
- 6 -
adjustments reflected respondent’s determination that Wilmington
had lower than reported bases in certain property subject to
Wilmington’s section 754 election that Wilmington sold during
1999-2. Respondent in the FPAA also determined accuracy-related
penalties under section 6662.
VI. Wilmington’s Petition to the Court
Wilmington’s petition to the Court challenged each of
respondent’s adjustments in the 1999 FPAA, including the
accuracy-related penalties. Wilmington’s mailing address and
principal place of business were in Rochester, New York, when it
filed the petition.
Discussion
I. Overview
Petitioner moves to dismiss this case for lack of
jurisdiction. Petitioner makes two arguments, the second of
which relates solely to 1999-1 as an alternative to the first
argument. We discuss each argument in turn. We first discuss,
however, the general rules of this Court’s jurisdiction over a
TEFRA proceeding.
II. Jurisdiction of the Court
We begin our analysis with a discussion of the Court’s
jurisdiction over a TEFRA proceeding. The Court is a court of
limited jurisdiction, and we may exercise our jurisdiction only
to the extent provided by Congress. See sec. 7442; GAF Corp. &
- 7 -
Subs. v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 519, 521 (2000). The Court’s
jurisdiction includes the right to decide whether the Court has
jurisdiction over the subject matter of a case. See Brookes v.
Commissioner, 108 T.C. 1, 4 (1997); Brannon’s of Shawnee, Inc. v.
Commissioner, 69 T.C. 999, 1002 (1978). The Court’s jurisdiction
is fundamental and may be challenged at any time. See Stewart v.
Commissioner, 127 T.C. 109, 112 (2006).
Section 6226(f) sets the scope of the Court’s jurisdiction
in a TEFRA partnership-level proceeding. The Court has authority
to determine all partnership items for a partnership taxable year
to which the FPAA relates, the proper allocation of partnership
items among the partnership’s partners, and the application of
any penalty, addition to tax, or additional amount that relates
to an adjustment to a partnership item. See id. A partnership
item includes any item of income, gain, loss, deduction, or
credit that subtitle A requires the partnership to take into
account for the taxable year, to the extent that regulations
provide that the item is more appropriately determined at the
partnership level than at the partner level.3 See sec.
6231(a)(3); see also sec. 301.6231(a)(3)-1(a), Proced. & Admin.
Regs. The Court’s jurisdiction over a TEFRA partnership-level
3
A partnership’s basis in contributed property (including
any necessary preliminary determination) is an example of a
partnership item that must be addressed at the partnership level.
See Nussdorf v. Commissioner, 129 T.C. 30 (2007); see also sec.
301.6231(a)(3)-1(a)(4)(i), (c)(2)(iv), Proced. & Admin. Regs.
- 8 -
proceeding is invoked upon the Commissioner’s issuance of a valid
FPAA and the proper filing of a petition for readjustment of
partnership items for the year or years to which the FPAA
pertains. See Harbor Cove Marina Partners Pship. v.
Commissioner, 123 T.C. 64, 78 (2004). An FPAA need not contain a
partnership item adjustment to be valid. See id.; see also Univ.
Heights at Hamilton Corp. v. Commissioner, 97 T.C. 278, 282
(1991).
III. Petitioner’s Primary Argument
Petitioner argues that the Court lacks jurisdiction as to
both years because respondent had to, but did not, adjust
Wilmington’s initial basis in the 1993 Reset Note in an FPAA for
1993. Petitioner asserts that Wilmington’s initial basis in the
1993 Reset Note is a partnership item only for 1993 and that the
1999 FPAA does not allow the Court to consider events outside the
subject years to adjust items for the subject years. Petitioner
contends that events occurring in a year (here 1993) may be
considered only if an FPAA is issued for that year. Petitioner
also contends that a partnership item is deemed to be reported
correctly for all years if it is not timely adjusted in an FPAA
related to the year in which the item is reported.
We conclude that the Court’s jurisdiction over the subject
years does not rest on whether respondent issued an FPAA for
1993. The 1999 FPAA reflects respondent’s determination that
- 9 -
Wilmington incorrectly reported its basis in the 1993 Reset Note
on its partnership returns for 1999-1 and 1999-2. The 1999 FPAA
adjusts Wilmington’s reported basis for each year. The 1999 FPAA
does not purport to adjust Wilmington’s partnership return for
1993.
We read nothing in TEFRA that prohibits us from considering
events in a nondocketed (or closed) year (here 1993) to make
proper adjustments for a docketed year (here 1999-1 or 1999-2).
The 1999 FPAA reflects respondent’s determination that the facts
and circumstances underlying the 1993 Reset Note’s contribution
to Wilmington in 1993 establish that the initial basis of the
1993 Reset Note was zero and that the basis remained at zero
throughout each subject year. The Court must decide the
correctness of that determination, given the parties’ dispute of
it. We do not read the TEFRA provisions narrowly to preclude the
Court from considering the events in 1993 to decide the dispute
for the subject years.
Nor do we read the TEFRA provisions to provide that the
initial basis of the 1993 Reset Note was a partnership item only
at the time of the note’s contribution. The initial basis of the
1993 Reset Note, while it may have been a partnership item in
1993, was a partnership item in each subject year. Petitioner
focuses on a statement in the 1999 FPAA that the 1993 Reset Note
“had a basis of zero at the time of its contribution” (emphasis
- 10 -
added) and concludes this means that respondent adjusted
Wilmington’s basis in the 1993 Reset Note for 1993. We read the
language in the 1999 FPAA differently. The 1999 FPAA did not
adjust the basis of the 1993 Reset Note for 1993. The 1999 FPAA
considered the events in 1993 to make an adjustment for the
subject years. Respondent was not required to adjust
Wilmington’s basis in the 1993 Reset Note in an FPAA that relates
to 1993. The parties have not identified, nor are we aware of,
anything that happened in 1993 that would have caused respondent
to adjust the 1993 Reset Note’s initial basis in an FPAA that
could lead to an assessment of any tax for 1993. A reporting of
basis may typically lead to an adjustment only when something
else happens that implicates that basis. Here, for example, that
something else occurred during the subject years.4
Petitioner asserts that section 6228(a)(5) authorizes the
Court to look to nondocketed (or closed) years to make
adjustments in a docketed year. Petitioner concludes that the
4
The parties discuss respondent’s right to issue an FPAA for
1993 at any time (and his preclusion from assessing tax for 1993
after the limitations period). See Kligfeld Holdings v.
Commissioner, 128 T.C. 192, 203-207 (2007); Rhone-Poulenc
Surfactants & Specialties, L.P. v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 533,
534 (2000). We do not understand that right to mean that
respondent must issue an FPAA for 1993 as a prerequisite to our
consideration of relevant events occurring in 1993. Such is
especially so given our conclusion that nothing happened in 1993
that would have caused respondent to adjust the 1993 Reset Note’s
initial basis in an FPAA that could lead to an assessment of any
tax for 1993.
- 11 -
inclusion of such a provision in section 6228(a)(5), but not in
section 6226(f), means that Congress intentionally declined to
include a similar provision in the latter section. We disagree.
A tax matters partner is allowed to file a request for an
administrative adjustment (AAR) on behalf of a partnership, and
the Commissioner may or may not allow that request. See sec.
6227(a), (c), (d); see also sec. 6231(a)(7) (providing rules on
who is a “tax matters partner”). The tax matters partner is
entitled to petition this Court, the appropriate U.S. District
Court, or the U.S. Court of Federal Claims to adjust the
partnership items related to the AAR if the Commissioner does not
allow the AAR in full. See sec. 6228(a). Section 6228(a)(5)
empowers the court in which the petition is filed to decide the
requested partnership items that were not allowed by the
Commissioner. Section 6228(a)(5) also empowers that court to
decide any additional items that the Commissioner asserts offset
the items requested by the tax matters partner. We read nothing
in section 6228(a)(5) that provides more specifically than
section 6226(f) that the referenced court may or may not consider
adjustments in a nondocketed (or closed) year to make an
adjustment in a docketed year. Nor do we draw such an inference
from our comparison of section 6228(a)(5) to section 6226(f).
We are not unmindful of section 6214(b). That section
provides that the Court in an income or gift tax deficiency case
- 12 -
shall consider facts occurring in a nondocketed year insofar as
necessary to determine the amount of the deficiency for a
docketed year. TEFRA includes no corresponding provision. The
U.S. Court of Federal Claims in J & J Fernandez Ventures, L.P.
v. United States, 84 Fed. Cl. 369 (2007), considered whether the
absence of such a corresponding provision in TEFRA meant that
Congress intended that a court in a TEFRA partnership-level
proceeding not consider facts from nondocketed (or closed) years.
There, events in 1999 established the tax basis of stock the
taxpayers sold in 2000 through 2003. The Government argued that
the taxpayers artificially inflated the tax basis of the stock
through the 1999 events. The taxpayers argued that the
Commissioner was time-barred from recalculating or considering
partnership items reported on the 1999 partnership returns in
assessing tax for 2000 through 2003. The court disagreed. The
court noted that a basis adjustment alone cannot trigger an
assessment of tax for the year of the adjustment. The court
noted further that the law was well settled that courts in a
nonpartnership proceeding may adjust items (including basis) in a
nondocketed (or closed) year to assess tax in a docketed year.
The court held that the settled law applied just as strongly in a
TEFRA proceeding. We agree. Accord G-5 Inv. Pship. v.
Commissioner, 128 T.C. 186, 191-192 (2007). Nothing in TEFRA or
in its legislative history precludes us in TEFRA proceedings from
- 13 -
considering events in a nondocketed (or closed) year to make
proper adjustments in a docketed year.
Nor do we read Roberts v. Commissioner, 94 T.C. 853 (1990),
and its progeny to establish that a partnership item as reported
on a partnership return is deemed to be correctly reported for
all years if the item is not adjusted within the limitations
period for that return. Such an unchallenged item may be deemed
binding for the year of reporting because the applicable
limitations period has expired as to the return. We recently
noted as much in Meruelo v. Commissioner, 132 T.C. , n.7
(2009) (slip op. at 17) (citing Roberts v. Commissioner, supra at
862). It does not naturally follow, however, that the item is
deemed correct or binding for all years.
We conclude that respondent’s issuance of an FPAA for
Wilmington’s 1993 taxable year is not a prerequisite for
adjusting Wilmington’s basis in the 1993 Reset Note to assess tax
for each subject year.5 Events in that nondocketed (or closed)
year may be considered to make proper adjustments in the docketed
years. Thus the 1999 FPAA is valid despite petitioner’s primary
argument.6
5
In the absence of a valid FPAA for 1993, however, no
partnership item may be adjusted to assess tax for that year.
See Maxwell v. Commissioner, 87 T.C. 783, 788-789 (1986).
6
Two other matters deserve mention. The first matter
concerns whether respondent’s issuance of the “No Adjustments
(continued...)
- 14 -
IV. Petitioner’s Alternative Argument
We turn to petitioner’s alternative argument. Petitioner
argues that the Court lacks jurisdiction over 1999-1 because the
1999 FPAA did not adjust a partnership item that Wilmington was
required by subtitle A to take into account for that taxable
year. Petitioner asserts that respondent made no adjustment to
Wilmington’s income, gain, loss, or credit for 1999-1.
Petitioner asserts that Wilmington was not required to take the
1993 Reset Note’s basis into account for 1999-1.
We conclude that the Court’s jurisdiction over 1999-1 does
not rest on whether the 1999 FPAA includes a partnership item
adjustment.7 We previously held as much in Harbor Cove Marina
Partners Pship. v. Commissioner, 123 T.C. 64 (2004). There, a
partner brought a TEFRA partnership-level proceeding to challenge
6
(...continued)
Letter” for 1993 precludes respondent from determining in the
1999 FPAA that Wilmington’s basis in the 1993 Reset Note was
different from that reported for 1993. The second matter
concerns whether respondent is precluded from advancing certain
arguments that are inconsistent with respondent’s litigating
position in other cases. We discuss neither matter in detail
because the matters do not relate to our jurisdiction over the
years. They are instead affirmative defenses to respondent’s
adjustments for those years. See Genesis Oil & Gas, Ltd. v.
Commissioner, 93 T.C. 562, 564-565 (1989); see also Ginsburg v.
Commissioner, 127 T.C. 75, 89 (2006) (holding that the Court had
jurisdiction over the year in question but that the limitations
period precluded the Commissioner from assessing any tax as to
that year).
7
Petitioner apparently agrees with this conclusion.
Petitioner’s moving papers state specifically that judicial
review may be sought of an FPAA that proposes no adjustment.
- 15 -
an FPAA for 1998 that contained no changes to the partnership’s
return for that year. The Court noted that the FPAA determined
that the partnership return for 1998 was correct as filed. The
Court held that we had jurisdiction because the Commissioner
issued the FPAA and the partner filed a timely petition to
readjust partnership items for 1998. The Court stressed that the
Court had jurisdiction even though the FPAA contained no
adjustment by the Commissioner. Id. at 78. We conclude likewise
that the Court has jurisdiction over 1999-1, and we hold that the
1999 FPAA is valid despite petitioner’s alternative argument.8
8
We would still have jurisdiction over 1999-1 even if the
1999 FPAA had to include a partnership item adjustment. The 1993
Reset Note’s basis in 1999-1 was such an adjustment in that
Wilmington had to account for its basis in the note for purposes
of its books and records, or for purposes of furnishing
information to a partner. As the Court explained in Bausch &
Lomb Inc. v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2009-112, a partner-level
proceeding with the same setting as here:
Partnership items are defined to include a partner’s
basis in contributed property when a partnership must
account for the partnership’s basis in the contributed
property for purposes of its books and records, or for
purposes of furnishing information to a partner. Sec.
301.6231(a)(3)-1(c)(2), Proced. & Admin. Regs; see also
Nussdorf v. Commissioner, * * * [129 T.C.] at 44.
Accordingly, the necessary facts are available only at
the partnership level to determine whether the
partnership was required to make a determination with
respect to BLIHC’s basis in the 1993 Reset Note for
these purposes. [Fn. ref. omitted.]
- 16 -
V. Conclusions
The 1999 FPAA is valid, and the Court has jurisdiction over
each subject year. Any assessment as to 1999-2 is time-barred as
set forth in our unpublished order. We await direction from the
parties regarding how to proceed as to 1999-1.
We have considered all arguments made, and we have rejected
those arguments as without merit to the extent not discussed
above. Accordingly, to reflect the foregoing,
An appropriate order will
be issued.
- 17 -
APPENDIX
Exhibit A - Explanation of Items
Wilmington Partners L.P. EIN: * * *
Final Partnership Administrative Adjustment Letter
Tax Years Ending: June 4, 1999; December 25, 1999
A. Basis in Reset Note contributed by B&L
International Holdings Corp.: It is
determined that the note contributed by
Bausch & Lomb International Holdings
Corporation to Wilmington Partners L.P. on or
about December 23, 1993 in the amount of
$550,000,000 had a basis of zero at the time
of its contribution. Further, it has not
been established that the distribution of
this note from Bausch & Lomb International,
Inc. to Bausch & Lomb International Holdings
Corporation had economic substance and was
accomplished for reasons other than the
creation of tax benefits. Further, it has
not been established that the note was
evidence of an actual corporate distribution
under IRC section 301. Accordingly, the note
contributed by Bausch & Lomb International
Holdings Corporation has no basis for the tax
years ended June 4, 1999 and December 25,
1999.
B. Section 734 adjustment: For the taxable year
ended December 25, 1999, it is determined
that Wilmington Partners L.P. has failed to
establish the character or adjusted bases of
the assets distributed by them [sic] to
Charles River Partners L.P. Wilmington
Partners L.P. has likewise failed to
establish that there was any increase to the
basis of any partnership property pursuant to
I.R.C. §§ 754 and 734(b). Furthermore, it
has been determined that there was a decrease
to the basis of certain partnership property
pursuant to I.R.C. §§ 754 and 734(b). It is
consequently determined that Wilmington
Partners L.P. has not established a basis in
certain partnership property in an amount
greater than $zero ($0).
- 18 -
1. It is determined that the basis of
Charles River Division 1245 Assets
was $zero ($0) for purposes of
determining gain or loss from the
sale of such assets. Accordingly,
the ordinary income from the sale
of Charles River Division 1245
Assets reported by Wilmington
Partners L.P. for the taxable year
ended December 25, 1999 is
increased by $9,386,279.
2. It is determined that the basis of
patents/intangibles was $zero ($0)
for purposes of determining gain or
loss from the sale of such assets.
Accordingly, the ordinary income
from the sale of
patents/intangibles reported by
Wilmington Partners L.P. for the
taxable year ended December 25,
1999 is increased by $663,316.
3. It is determined that the basis of
the goodwill in CR Division of WPLP
is $zero ($0) for purposes of
determining gain or loss from the
sale of such asset. Accordingly,
the long-term capital gain from the
sale of the goodwill in CR Division
of WPLP reported by Wilmington
Partners L.P. for the taxable year
ended December 25, 1999 is
increased by $189,882,108.
C. Penalties (apply to all adjustments):
1. It is determined that a 40 percent
penalty shall be imposed on the
portion of any underpayment
attributable to the gross valuation
misstatement as provided by I.R.C.
§§ 6662(a), 6662(b)(3), 6662(e),
and 6662(h). There has not been a
showing by the partnership or any
of its partners that there was
reasonable cause for any of the
resulting underpayments, that the
- 19 -
partnership or any of its partners
acted in good faith, or that any
other exceptions to the penalty
apply.
2. Alternatively, it is determined
that a penalty applies pursuant to
I.R.C. § 6662 to all of the
partnership adjustments on the
following grounds: (1) negligence
or disregard of the rules and
regulations, (2) substantial
understatement of income tax, and
(3) substantial valuation
misstatement. There has not been a
showing by the partnership or any
of its partners that there was
reasonable cause for any of the
resulting underpayments, that the
partnership or any of its partners
acted in good faith, or that any
other exceptions to the penalty
apply.