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.
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.