* Honorable Stefan R. Underhill of the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut, sitting by designation. 10-5155-ag Int’l Strategic Partners v. Comm’r of Internal Revenue
**UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT** 
**SUMMARY ORDER**

**R ULINGS BY**  **S UMMARY**  **O RDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT**  **. C**  **ITATION TO A S**  **UMMARY O** **RDER FILED ON OR AFTER J** **ANUARY 1,**  **2007 IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY**  **F EDERAL**  **R ULE OF**  **A PPELLATE**  **P ROCEDURE**  **32.1 AND THIS**  **C OURT**  **’ S**  **L OCAL**  **R ULE**  **32.1.1. W** **HEN CITING A S**  **UMMARY O** **RDER IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS C**  **OURT ,**  **A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE F**  **EDERAL A** **PPENDIX OR AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE**  **( WITH THE NOTATION**  **“S UMMARY**  **O RDER**  **”). A**  **PARTY CITING A S**  **UMMARY O** **RDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL**  **.** At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals 1 for the Second Circuit, held at the Daniel Patrick Moynihan 2 United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, in the City of 3 New York, on the 19 thday of January, two thousand twelve. 4 5 PRESENT: RICHARD C. WESLEY, 6 PETER W. HALL, 7 Circuit Judges, 8 STEFAN R. UNDERHILL, 9 District Judge. * 10 11 12 INTERNATIONAL STRATEGIC PARTNERS, LLC, 13 C/O SHANT S. HOVNANIAN, TAX MATTERS PARTNER, 14 15 Petitioner-Appellant, 16 17 -v.- 10-5155-ag 18 19 COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, 20 21 Respondent-Appellee. 22 23 24 FOR APPELLANT: WILLIAM READ RANKIN, Pennington, NJ. 25 26 FOR APPELLEE: DAMON W. TAAFFE (Bridget M. Rowan, on the 27 brief ), Tax Division, Department of 28 Justice, Washington, D.C. 291 Once the IRS mails a partnership a notice of a final partnership administrative adjustment, the tax matters partner has 90 days to petition for readjustment in the Tax Court. 26 U.S.C. § 6226(a)(1). If the tax matters partner does not file a readjustment petition, any other notice partner may petition for readjustment within 60 days after the close of the first 90 day period. Id. § 6226(b)(1). Otherwise, the Tax Court lacks jurisdiction to consider a challenge. 2 Appeal from an order and judgment of the United States 1 Tax Court (Foley, J. ), which dismissed Petitioner2 Appellant’s petition for review of a tax adjustment for lack 3 of jurisdiction. The Tax Court found that Petitioner had 4 filed its petition for review more than 150 days after the 5 Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) mailed Petitioner a final 6 partnership administrative adjustment (“FPAA”), and 7 therefore, it lacked jurisdiction to consider Petitioner’s 8 challenge. 1 We assume the parties’ familiarity with the 9 underlying facts, the procedural history, and the issues 10 presented for review. 11 **UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED,** 12
**AND DECREED** that the Tax Court’s order and judgment is 13

**AFFIRMED**
. 14 The IRS must provide a partnership notice of “(1) the 15 beginning of an administrative proceeding at the partnership 16 level with respect to a partnership item, and (2) the final 17 partnership administrative adjustment resulting from any 183 such proceeding.” 26 U.S.C. § 6223(a). The IRS must 1 provide this notice to each partner named on the partnership 2 return for the year in question, using the names and 3 addresses shown on the return. Id. § 6223(c)(1). The 4 partnership may provide the IRS with “additional 5 information,” i.e. , address changes, by following the 6 procedures set forth in IRS regulations. Id. § 6223(c)(2); 7 26 C.F.R. § 301.6223(c)-1 (requiring partnerships to provide 8 any “additional information” by written notice to the IRS 9 service center where the partnership return is filed). 10 Here, Petitioner conceded that it did not provide the 11 IRS with any “additional information” pursuant to 12 § 6223(c)(2) or Regulation 301.6223(c)-1. The IRS mailed 13 the required notices to “International Strategic Partners” 14 at the address listed on its 2002 partnership return. It 15 also mailed the required notices to each partner listed on 16 the Schedule K-1s accompanying the 2002 partnership return. 17 Therefore, the IRS satisfied its notice requirement. 18 Petitioner had 150 days from the notice date (June 12, 2007) 19 to petition for readjustment in the Tax Court; that window 20 closed on November 10, 2007. Petitioner did not seek review 21 until December 4, 2007. 224 Despite Petitioner’s belief to the contrary, the IRS 1 was not required to do anything more than it did. It was 2 Petitioner’s responsibility to update its contact 3 information with the IRS, if necessary, pursuant to the 4 regulations. It did not do so and cannot impose a burden on 5 the IRS that Congress declined to impose. We have 6 considered Petitioner’s remaining arguments and find them 7 without merit. 8
**AFFIRMED**
. 9
10 FOR THE COURT: 11 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk 12