t c memo united_states tax_court ann e bartak petitioner v commissioner of internal revenue respondent docket no filed date terri a merriam wendy s pearson and jennifer a gellner for petitioner margaret a martin for respondent memorandum findings_of_fact and opinion vasquez judge respondent determined that petitioner did not qualify for relief from joint_and_several_liability pursuant to sec_6015 c or f the issue for decision i sec_1 unless otherwise indicated all section references are to the internal_revenue_code and all rule references are to the tax continued whether petitioner is entitled to relief from joint_and_several_liability pursuant to sec_6015 or f for and findings_of_fact some of the facts have been stipulated and are so found the first stipulation of facts second stipulation of facts third stipulation of facts and the attached exhibits are incorporated herein by this reference at the time she filed the petition petitioner resided in hacienda heights california petitioner and her husband petitioner has a high school education after high school petitioner worked for the telephone company for years petitioner married ernest f joe bartak mr bartak in as of the time of trial petitioner and mr bartak were married petitioner wrote all the checks for the household expenses and maintained possession of the household checkbook petitioner handled all the household bills petitioner had access to all the family’s tax information and documents petitioner’s relationship with mr bartak during the years in issue family financial decisions were discussed between petitioner and mr bartak mr bartak did not continued court rules_of_practice and procedure in her petition petitioner sought relief pursuant to sec_6015 and f accordingly sec_6015 is not in issue conceal anything from petitioner mr bartak did not deceive or mislead petitioner mr bartak did not hide or try to hide any information or documents from petitioner mr bartak never threatened or coerced petitioner into making investments signing their tax returns or signing checks mr bartak did not abuse petitioner hoyt partnerships walter j hoyt iii and some members of his family were in the business of creating tax_shelter limited_partnerships for their cattle breeding operations hoyt partnerships as part of their services the hoyt organization also prepared the investor’s tax returns for a description of the hoyt organization and its operation see bales v commissioner tcmemo_1989_568 see also river city ranches ltd v commissioner tcmemo_2003_150 mekulsia v commissioner tcmemo_2003_138 river city ranches j v v commissioner tcmemo_1999_209 affd 23_fedappx_744 9th cir investment in sge and tbs in the early 1980s mr bartak heard about the hoyt partnerships from his coworkers mr bartak met with mr hoyt and reviewed the hoyt partnerships investment brochures he understood and it was explained upfront that he and petitioner would eventually have to pay taxes on an investment in the hoyt partnerships mr bartak was told that when he entered into a hoyt partnership he and petitioner would be able to receive a refund of all the money they paid in taxes for the last years mr bartak showed petitioner the hoyt partnerships promotional materials and she read them petitioner attended hoyt organization meetings and met mr hoyt from through petitioner attended most if not all hoyt organization meetings that were close to her home mr bartak asked mr hoyt questions about the hoyt partnerships in petitioner’s presence so that petitioner could learn about the hoyt partnerships petitioner also asked some questions about the hoyt partnerships petitioner understood that she and mr bartak would obtain tax_credits and deductions and that there would be large losses associated with their investment in the hoyt partnerships petitioner knew that the tax aspects were a big part of the investment in the hoyt partnerships petitioner was not interested in investing in the hoyt partnerships petitioner was skeptical about the hoyt partnerships she did not expect to make a profit even though mr hoyt said they would from the very beginning something about it didn’t sit right with petitioner and she was never comfortable with the deductions claimed on her returns associated with the hoyt partnerships on date petitioner and mr bartak signed subscription agreements to invest in shorthorn genetic engineering sge series a and b units above their signatures the documents state the undersigned intends that their signature hereon shall constitute not only a subscription but shall also constitute their signature to the partnership_agreement below petitioner’s signatures the documents state signature of spouse or other subscriber if purchase is made jointly this was petitioner and mr bartak’s initial investment in one of the hoyt partnerships in petitioner and mr bartak paid no cash to sge in petitioner and mr bartak paid dollar_figure in cash to sge by petitioner and mr bartak had paid at least dollar_figure in cash to sge in late or early after petitioner and mr bartak invested in sge they went to the hoyt organization property hoyt ranch between and petitioner went to the hoyt ranch three to four times after their initial trip to the hoyt ranch petitioner and mr bartak invested in other hoyt partnerships including timeshare breeding service ltd tbs petitioner and mr bartak signed a subscription agreement dated date for tbs below their signatures the line next to joint_tenants with right_of_survivorship was marked petitioner and mr bartak invested in additional hoyt partnerships during and subsequent to the years in issue neither petitioner nor mr bartak sought advice from a tax professional about the hoyt partnerships before or after investing arvis w drowns jr petitioner and mr bartak’s tax_return_preparer before they invested in the hoyt partnerships did not review the hoyt partnerships promotional materials petitioner never suggested seeking the advice of someone outside the hoyt organization regarding the hoyt partnerships mr bartak never consulted or stated that he had consulted with an independent tax professional regarding the hoyt partnerships mr bartak did not force petitioner to invest in or sign documents related to the hoyt partnerships there was no hostility or threats mr bartak wanted petitioner to sign the documents because he wanted to make sure she was fully aware of the investments petitioner signed checks including checks on accounts held jointly by petitioner and mr bartak made payable to hoyt partnerships or the hoyt organization one of the checks petitioner wrote was for the audit pool --a fund for hoyt partners who were audited by the internal_revenue_service irs petitioner and mr bartak’s other investments in addition to the hoyt partnerships petitioner and mr bartak had several other investments at the time they invested in the hoyt partnerships petitioner and mr bartak owned stock and had invested in other partnerships one partnership petitioner and mr bartak were partners in invested in real_estate petitioner signed the documents for this partnership investment another partnership petitioner and mr bartak were partners in was silver screen partners ltd this partnership invested in movies that had not yet been made another partnership petitioner and mr bartak were partners in was cornerstone investment cornerstone investment was formed to operate a building materials yard before they invested in cornerstone investment petitioner and mr bartak visited cornerstone investment’s property and saw what cornerstone investment would be doing mr bartak also invested in limited_partnerships and real_estate with his and petitioner’s son william documents from the hoyt organization petitioner and mr bartak received promotional materials from the hoyt organization about the hoyt partnerships mr bartak accumulated and maintained a file of all the documents he received related to petitioner and mr bartak’s investments in hoyt partnerships--whether from the hoyt organization or from the irs mr bartak provided petitioner the hoyt partnerships’ brochures mr bartak did not deny petitioner access or hide from petitioner any documents related to their investment in the hoyt partnerships mr bartak wanted petitioner to look at the hoyt organization’s materials and to hear what petitioner thought about the hoyt partnerships one of the promotional materials petitioner and mr bartak received included the following language under the heading specific risks involved a change in the tax laws or an audit and disallowance by the irs could take away all or part of the tax benefits plus the possibility of having to pay the tax along with penalties and interest it further stated this term decapitated is crude but it is a concept that is very applicable to the comparison of having a disallowance of your tax deductions by the internal_revenue_service the prospect of having to pay the taxes when you have put your tax money into the cattle and it’s gone is a financial wreck the brochure went on to state that there was no assurance that things would be o k and if you’re like most people your first impression of a w j hoyt sons livestock purchase was this deal looks to good to be true we know you’ve heard if a deal looks to good to be true it probably is you probably looked at this business and thought at first no way can that be legal you only considered going into the cattle business after you heard about the tax benefits tax benefits were your incentive to look at this kind of business beware of the pitfalls however cattle breeding is a risky business and may also bring an irs examination because it is lowering your taxes another document titled partnership memorandum and amended agreement of limited_partnership petitioner and mr bartak received from the hoyt organization contained the following statements this partnership involves certain risks to the partners including tax risks see risk factors the contents of this memorandum are not to be construed as investment legal or tax_advice each partner should consult his own counsel accountant or business advisor as to legal tax and related matters concerning this investment_unit holders should consider the various investment risk factors of the partnership which are set forth in risk factors including the possibilities of adverse tax treatment the partnership has not received a ruling that it will be classified as a partnership for federal_income_tax purposes see income_tax consequences certain tax considerations in judging whether to subscribe for units a partner should consider the tax consequences thereof which include among others a possible taxation of an amount in excess of proceeds actually received on the sale of the units and or the partnership properties and on undistributed_net_income b the possibility that the partnership will not be treated as a partnership for tax purposes c the possibility that the internal_revenue_service will not give effect to the allocation_of_profits_and_losses contained in the partnership_agreement e the risk that an audit of the partnership’s income_tax return may result in an audit of a limited partners’ own individual tax_return the income_tax returns of the partnership may be audited and in turn such audit may result in the audit of the returns of each partner in addition the commissioner of internal revenue has announced that the service is engaged in a program of intensified audits of partnerships various deductions claimed by the partnership on its returns of income could be disallowed in whole or in part on audit which would result in an increase in the taxable_income of the partnership and in turn each partner if a tax_deficiency is determined the taxpayer is liable for interest compounded on a daily basis on such deficiency from the due_date of the return based on the investment objectives of the partnership the general partners believe that there are substantial grounds for arguing that the partnership is not a tax_shelter however no assurance can be given that the irs will not attempt to classify the partnership as a tax_shelter nor whether such attempt would be successful the foregoing analysis cannot be and is not intended as a substitute for careful tax planning accordingly partners are urged to consult their tax advisors with respect to their tax situation and the effects of owning partnership units tax returns petitioner and mr bartak filed joint federal_income_tax returns for and for and mr drowns prepared their returns for and the hoyt organization prepared their returns on their joint income_tax return for petitioner and mr bartak reported dollar_figure in wages in arriving at total income the only additions and subtractions were dollar_figure in interest_income dollar_figure in taxable refunds of state and local_taxes and a dollar_figure schedule e supplemental income schedule loss this schedule e loss was attributable to petitioner and mr bartak’s investment in a non-hoyt partnership the total_tax listed was dollar_figure the federal_income_tax withheld listed was dollar_figure on their joint income_tax return for petitioner and mr bartak reported dollar_figure in wages in arriving at total income the only additions and subtractions were dollar_figure in interest_income dollar_figure in dividends dollar_figure in taxable refunds of state and local_taxes and a dollar_figure schedule e loss this schedule e loss was attributable to petitioner and mr bartak’s investment in a non-hoyt partnership the total_tax listed was dollar_figure the federal_income_tax withheld listed was dollar_figure on their joint income_tax return for petitioner and mr bartak reported dollar_figure in wages in arriving at total income the only additions and subtractions were dollar_figure in interest_income dollar_figure in dividends dollar_figure in taxable refunds of state and petitioner’s joint_return is not part of the record local_taxes and a dollar_figure schedule e loss most of the schedule e loss dollar_figure was attributable to the hoyt partnerships the total_tax listed was zero the federal_income_tax withheld listed was dollar_figure in petitioner and mr bartak sold their real_estate partnership investment petitioner and mr bartak had a large capital_gain dollar_figure associated with the sale of this investment on their joint income_tax return for petitioner and mr bartak reported dollar_figure in wages in arriving at total income the only additions and subtractions were dollar_figure in interest_income dollar_figure in taxable refunds of state and local_taxes a dollar_figure capital_gain related to the sale of the real_estate partnership investment and a dollar_figure schedule e loss most of the schedule e loss dollar_figure was attributable to petitioner and mr bartak’s investment in the hoyt partnerships the total_tax listed was dollar_figure the federal_income_tax withheld listed was dollar_figure on their joint income_tax return for petitioner and mr bartak reported dollar_figure in wages in arriving at total income the only additions and subtractions were dollar_figure in interest_income dollar_figure in dividends dollar_figure in taxable refunds of we make no finding that petitioner and mr bartak’s initial hoyt partnership investment actually was in state and local_taxes a dollar_figure capital_loss and a dollar_figure schedule e loss most of the schedule e loss dollar_figure was attributable to petitioner and mr bartak’s investment in the hoyt partnerships the total_tax listed was dollar_figure the federal_income_tax withheld listed was dollar_figure on their joint income_tax return for petitioner and mr bartak reported dollar_figure in wages in arriving at total income the only additions and subtractions were dollar_figure in interest_income dollar_figure in dividends dollar_figure in taxable refunds of state and local_taxes and a dollar_figure schedule e loss most of the schedule e loss dollar_figure was attributable to petitioner and mr bartak’s investment in the hoyt partnerships the total_tax listed was dollar_figure the federal_income_tax withheld listed was dollar_figure petitioner reviewed her joint returns page by page and she looked at the items related to the hoyt partnerships the large losses associated with her investment in the hoyt partnerships did not surprise her petitioner thought that the large deductions were the reason for investing in the hoyt partnerships mr bartak specifically explained to petitioner the items on the return related to the hoyt partnerships the schedules k-1 partner’s share of income credits deductions etc issued by hoyt partnerships sge and tbs to petitioner and mr bartak for and list the following under the area for partner’s name ernest f ann e bartak in petitioner and mr bartak applied for a refund of their and taxes in the amounts of dollar_figure dollar_figure and dollar_figure respectively on date respondent mailed petitioner and mr bartak a letter and report explaining computational adjustments made to their and returns as a result of adjustments made to the partnership returns of sge for and these computational adjustments resulted from the court’s opinion in shorthorn genetic engg ltd v commissioner tcmemo_1996_515 shorthorn genetic engg ltd v commissioner petitioner and mr bartak filed a notice of election to participate in one of the dockets of shorthorn genetic engg ltd v commissioner supra filed a joint motion to consolidate for trial briefing and opinion in that case and this is also true for schedules k-1 partner’s share of income credits deductions etc issued by various hoyt partnerships to petitioner and mr bartak in the years subsequent to the years in issue through although some of the schedules k-1 do not contain their middle initials and on some the word and is spelled out again we make no finding that petitioner and mr bartak actually invested in the hoyt partnerships in filed a stipulation of facts in that case petitioner and mr bartak signed each of these documents in the notice of election to participate petitioner and mr bartak stated ernest f and ann e bartak satisfy the requirements of sec_6226 internal_revenue_code_of_1986 because they were a partner during the applicable_period s for which readjustment of partnership items is sought and if such readjustment is made the tax attributable to such partnership items may be assessed against them request for relief from joint_and_several_liability on or about date petitioner mailed respondent a form_8857 request for innocent spouse relief and separation of liability and equitable relief in tax examiner bonnie f halbert ms halbert was assigned to review petitioner’s request for sec_6015 relief in processing petitioner’s claim betty sneed another employee of respondent requested hoyt partnership related information regarding petitioner and mr bartak from revenue_agent deborah ritchie ms ritchie provided a computer petitioner requested relief for the tax years through on date respondent mailed petitioner a letter advising her that the request was premature for the years through as the request related to a potential assessment from a tefra tax equity and fiscal responsibility act of partnership proceeding that as of that date had not been concluded on date respondent mailed petitioner a letter advising her that the request for was not premature petitioner’s tax_year is not before the court ms ritchie worked on the hoyt audit team and the hoyt continued printout for hoyt partnerships taxable years related to petitioner and mr bartak copies of subscription agreements powers of attorney and partnership agreements signed by petitioner and mr bartak copies of schedules k-1 issued to petitioner and mr bartak from the hoyt partnerships and copies of checks signed by petitioner or mr bartak made payable to hoyt partnerships on date petitioner’s counsel mailed respondent a supplement to petitioner’s sec_6015 claim ms halbert reviewed and considered all the materials and information petitioner submitted regarding her sec_6015 claim on date ms halbert prepared a written evaluation of petitioner’s claim ms halbert concluded that petitioner was not entitled to sec_6015 relief because petitioner knew of the hoyt partnerships and owned the item that gave rise to the deficiency ie the hoyt partnerships ms halbert concluded that there were no factors favoring granting sec_6015 relief and the following factors weighed against granting sec_6015 relief lack of economic hardship the liability was not solely attributable to the nonrequesting spouse and the requesting spouse had knowledge continued tax_shelter project the hoyt tax_shelter project examined hoyt partnerships ms ritchie assisted district_counsel in preparing hoyt partnerships cases for trial or reason to know accordingly ms halbert concluded it was not inequitable to hold petitioner liable on date respondent mailed petitioner a preliminary determination with respect to petitioner’s request for relief from joint_and_several_liability for through respondent determined that petitioner was not entitled to relief pursuant to sec_6015 c or f on date respondent mailed petitioner a notice_of_determination that determined petitioner was not entitled to relief from liability pursuant to sec_6015 c or f for through that same day respondent mailed mr bartak a letter notifying him that petitioner’s request for relief from joint_and_several_liability had been denied after the petition and answer in this case were filed petitioner’s sec_6015 claim was forwarded to respondent’s appeals_office appeals officer gloria j flandez was assigned to review petitioner’s case ms flandez reviewed and considered the information submitted to her by petitioner and her attorneys on or about date after completing her review of petitioner’s case ms flandez prepared an appeals case memorandum ms flandez concluded that petitioner was not entitled to relief from liability pursuant to sec_6015 c or f for through appeals team manager robert m spooner approved ms flandez’s appeal case memorandum petitioner’s financial status on date petitioner and mr bartak signed a form 433-a collection information statement for wage earners and self-employed individuals the form 433-a contained the following statements petitioner and mr bartak owned the home that they purchased in date for dollar_figure with a current value of dollar_figure a loan balance of dollar_figure and a monthly payment totaling dollar_figure they had no dependents they could claim on their tax_return they had two checking accounts one at us bank and the other with f a federal credit_union with a total balance of dollar_figure and they had other accounts two with whittier municipal credit_union one with f a credit_union and one with a g edwards sons inc with a total balance of dollar_figure their investments form 433-a investments listed as totaling dollar_figure included horizons deferred comp with a current value of dollar_figure keyport annuity with a current value of dollar_figure new york life var annuity with a current value of dollar_figure uniprop income fwd ii with a current value of dollar_figure u s savings bonds with a current value of dollar_figure u s savings bonds ann’s trust with a current value of dollar_figure cornerstone with a current value of dollar_figure lucent technologies with a current value of dollar_figure n c r with a current value of dollar_figure vodaphone with a current value of dollar_figure verizon with a current value of dollar_figure at t with a current value of dollar_figure s b c with a current value of dollar_figure q with a current value of dollar_figure and fidelity invest with a current value of dollar_figure they had available credit of dollar_figure they also owned two cars a chevy suburban and a honda civic worth a total of dollar_figure and with outstanding loans totaling dollar_figure they listed no personal assets ie zero in determining the current value of their form 433-a investments petitioner and mr bartak valued them pincite percent of the face value even though the form 433-a states current value indicate the amount you could sell the asset for today in determining the current value of their real_estate petitioner and mr bartak valued their home at quick sale value even though the form 433-a states current value indicate the amount you could sell the asset for today under the monthly income and expense analysis on form 433-a petitioner and mr bartak listed monthly wages of dollar_figure monthly interest dividends of dollar_figure monthly pension social_security of dollar_figure and other settlement of dollar_figure per month for total monthly income of dollar_figure under total living_expenses petitioner and mr bartak listed dollar_figure for food clothing and miscellaneous dollar_figure for housing and utilities dollar_figure for transportation dollar_figure for health care dollar_figure for taxes and dollar_figure for other expenses comprising attorney’s fees dollar_figure church contributions dollar_figure and dues dollar_figure this brought their total expenses to dollar_figure per month attached to the form 433-a were the following an annual property_tax bill for the fiscal_year date to date from los angeles county for petitioner and mr bartak’s home with a current assessed value and taxable value of dollar_figure a statement from the county of los angeles deferred_compensation and thrift_plan horizons listing a total account balance of dollar_figure as of date a us bank statement listing an ending balance of dollar_figure as of date a f a federal credit_union statement listing a total ending balance of dollar_figure as of date a f a federal credit_union statement listing a total ending balance of dollar_figure as of date this account is separate from the one with the dollar_figure account balance a whittier municipal employees federal credit_union statement account number listing an ending balance of dollar_figure as of date a whittier municipal employees federal credit_union statement account number listing an ending balance of dollar_figure as of date and their joint tax_return which listed adjusted_gross_income of dollar_figure in arriving at adjusted_gross_income their joint_return listed dollar_figure in total pension and annuities and a taxable_amount of dollar_figure opinion i evidentiary issue as a preliminary matter we must decide whether a document petitioner submitted during the trial of this case should be admitted into evidence at trial petitioner sought to introduce a fraud_referral memorandum for walter j hoyt iii exhibit 187-p respondent objected to the admission of exhibit 187-p on the grounds of authentication relevance and hearsay we reserved ruling on exhibit 187-p’s admissibility petitioner failed to make any arguments regarding the admissibility of exhibit 187-p in her opening brief in her reply brief petitioner stated petitioner has addressed the relevance and purpose of exhibit 187-p in her opening brief in the context of proposed findings_of_fact for the reasons stated in doyel v commissioner tcmemo_2004_35 abandonment hearsay lack of authenticity relevancy and wastefulness we do not admit exhibit 187-p into evidence ii sec_6015 relief in general spouses filing joint federal_income_tax returns are jointly and severally liable for all taxes due sec_6013 under certain circumstances however sec_6015 provides relief from this general_rule except as otherwise provided in sec_6015 petitioner bears the burden_of_proof rule a 118_tc_106 affd 353_f3d_1181 10th cir in arguing that petitioner is entitled to relief pursuant to sec_6015 petitioner relies upon the regulations related to sec_6015 sec_1_6015-0 through income_tax regs are applicable for elections or requests for relief filed on or after date sec_1_6015-9 income_tax regs petitioner filed her election prior to this date accordingly the regulations are inapplicable petitioner also cites chief_counsel_advice and tax_court summary opinions to support her claims parties are statutorily proscribed from citing chief_counsel_advice as precedent sec_6110 see 118_tc_126 ndollar_figure by statute summary opinions shall not be treated as precedent sec_7463 a relief under sec_6015 to qualify for relief from joint_and_several_liability under sec_6015 a taxpayer must establish a a joint_return has been made for a taxable_year b on such return there is an understatement_of_tax attributable to erroneous items of individual filing the joint_return c the other individual filing the joint_return establishes that in signing the return he or she did not know and had no reason to know that there was such understatement d taking into account all the facts and circumstances it is inequitable to hold the other individual liable for the deficiency in tax for such taxable_year attributable to such understatement and e the other individual elects in such form as the secretary may prescribe the benefits of this subsection not later than the date which i sec_2 years after the date the secretary has begun collection activities with respect to the individual making the election the requirements of sec_6015 are stated in the conjunctive accordingly a failure to meet any one of them is sufficient for us to find that petitioner does not qualify for relief pursuant to sec_6015 119_tc_306 respondent contends that petitioner failed to establish the requirements of subparagraphs b c and d petitioner admits that the hoyt partnerships caused the erroneous items on the returns petitioner however contends that the hoyt partnerships are not attributable to her petitioner was a partner in the hoyt partnerships she signed documents relating to her and mr bartak’s investment in the hoyt partnerships see 992_f2d_1256 2d cir affg tcmemo_1992_228 although petitioner may have signed checks to the hoyt organization because mr bartak asked her some of the checks made payable to hoyt partnerships were drawn on petitioner and mr bartak’s joint bank account furthermore it is clear that the hoyt organization treated her and mr bartak as a partner in the hoyt partnerships the schedules k-1 the hoyt organization issued regarding their investment in sge and tbs listed petitioner as a partner in these hoyt partnerships finally mr bartak may have taken the initiative and played a more dominant role in deciding to invest in the hoyt partnerships but petitioner agreed to invest in the hoyt partnerships and she did it jointly with mr bartak petitioner testified that she thought that she and mr bartak personally owned the cattle at the hoyt ranches additionally petitioner admitted in her petition and the notice of election to participate in shorthorn genetic engg ltd v commissioner tcmemo_1995_515 to being a partner in sge accordingly we conclude that the understatements are not attributable to the erroneous items of one individual filing the joint returns see ellison v commissioner tcmemo_2004_57 investment in hoyt partnership was attributable to the taxpayer requesting sec_6015 relief because she was a partner in the hoyt partnership doyel v commissioner tcmemo_2004_35 same the failure to meet the requirements of sec_6015 is sufficient for us to find that petitioner does not qualify for relief pursuant to sec_6015 alt v commissioner supra pincite although we need not decide whether petitioner satisfies the requirements of subparagraphs c and d for the sake of completeness we shall briefly discuss the application of b c and d see jonson v commissioner supra pincite this case is appealable to the u s court_of_appeals for the ninth circuit accordingly with regard to sec_6015 we apply the standard set forth in 887_f2d_959 9th cir revg an oral opinion of this court 54_tc_742 affd 445_f2d_985 10th cir for reasons similar to those stated in doyel v commissioner supra in which we applied the standards set forth in price petitioner had reason to know of the understatements contrary to her assertion petitioner was involved in her family’s financial affairs although she may have not played a dominant role or been the initiator the decision to invest in the hoyt partnerships was made in consultation with petitioner petitioner was shown the documents relating to the hoyt investments signed hoyt investment documents was aware that the hoyt investment was supposed to result in substantial tax savings and attended hoyt investor meetings petitioner was aware of the large deductions taken on her joint tax returns associated with the hoyt investments the hoyt investment materials she was shown and had the opportunity to review apprised her of tax risks associated with the investment these facts establish that petitioner had reason to know see jonson v commissioner t c pincite petitioner and her husband testified that petitioner was aware of the investment in the hoyt partnerships that she had access to all of the files information regarding the hoyt investment and that mr bartak made no effort to deceive petitioner regarding the family’s financial affairs this further supports a finding that petitioner had reason to know of the understatement id pincite petitioner claims that mr hoyt’s deceit is relevant to the determination of reason to know although mr hoyt’s deceit may be relevant it does not lead to the result petitioner seeks the purpose of sec_6015 relief is to protect one spouse from the overreaching or dishonesty of the other 826_f2d_470 6th cir affg 86_tc_228 relief is inappropriate where it would allow the requesting spouse to escape liability for apparently legitimate claims that are later disallowed see bartlett v commissioner tcmemo_1997_413 as was the case in 117_tc_279 where we denied relief under sec_6015 in a case involving hoyt investments neither petitioner nor mr bartak knew the facts that made the flowthrough losses from the hoyt partnerships unallowable as deductions on their joint returns and both petitioner and mr bartak put their trust in the hoyt organization to determine the basis for propriety of and amount of their deductions it is significant that petitioner knew of the hoyt investment the hoyt investment was designed to generate large deductions resulting in substantial tax savings those deductions were taken on joint returns for the years in issue and there was a risk that the deductions might be disallowed by the irs jonson v commissioner t c pincite tax returns setting forth large deductions such as tax_shelter losses offsetting income from other sources and substantially reducing the couple’s tax_liability generally put a taxpayer on notice that there may be an understatement_of_tax liability hayman v commissioner f 2d pincite furthermore the court in price noted that the size of the deduction in issue vis-a-vis the total income reported on the return when considered in light of the fact that the taxpayer knew of the investment and its nature is enough to put the taxpayer on notice that an understatement exists and therefore if the duty_of inquiry is not discharged leads to an imputation of reason to know of the understatement price v commissioner f 2d pincite dollar_figure deduction and just more than dollar_figure in income petitioner did not satisfy her duty to inquire id pincite see also mora v commissioner supra pincite involving a hoyt investment a reasonable person faced with petitioner’s circumstances and in petitioner’s position would have had reason to know of the understatement we conclude that under the price approach petitioner had reason to know of the understatements furthermore for reasons similar to those stated in doyel v commissioner supra and discussed infra regarding sec_6015 it is not inequitable to hold petitioner liable for the understatements contained on her joint returns we note that the equitable factors we consider under sec_6015 are the same equitable factors we consider under sec_6015 alt v commissioner t c pincite the understatements are not attributable to the erroneous items of one individual filing the joint returns for through petitioner had reason to know of the understatements on these returns and it is not inequitable to hold the petitioner liable for the deficiencies in tax for to on the basis of all the facts and circumstances we conclude that petitioner is not entitled to relief pursuant to sec_6015 b relief under sec_6015 respondent argues that he did not abuse his discretion in denying petitioner equitable relief under sec_6015 respondent’s denial of relief is reviewed under an abuse_of_discretion standard 115_tc_183 affd 282_f3d_326 5th cir 114_tc_276 our review is not limited to respondent’s administrative record 122_tc_32 as directed by sec_6015 the commissioner prescribed procedures in revproc_2000_15 2000_1_cb_447 respondent uses to determine whether an individual qualifies for relief under sec_6015 revenue_procedure enumerated factors in this case none of the six factors in revproc_2000_15 2000_1_cb_447 weighing in favor of granting relief are present petitioner was not separated or divorced from mr bartak petitioner will not suffer economic hardship if relief is denied petitioner was not abused by mr bartak petitioner knew or had reason to know of the item giving rise we note that revproc_2003_61 2003_32_irb_296 date superseded revproc_2000_15 2000_1_cb_447 revproc_2003_61 sec i r b pincite the new revenue_procedure however is effective for requests for relief filed on or after date id accordingly it is inapplicable to the case at bar to the deficiency mr bartak did not have an obligation to pay the liability pursuant to a divorce decree and the items giving rise to the deficiencies are not attributable solely to mr bartak see 120_tc_137 additionally the following factors weighing against relief are present the items giving rise to the deficiencies are attributable to petitioner petitioner knew or had reason to know of the item giving rise to the deficiency and petitioner will not suffer economic hardship id as we found supra the items giving rise to the deficiencies are attributable to petitioner and she knew or had reason to know of the understatements under the price standard petitioner’s tax_liabilities for through totaled dollar_figure even if we were to include the interest due on that liability as of date the most current information available in the record petitioner and mr bartak have hundreds of thousands of dollars in assets in excess of this amount as of date based on the information she provided the assets listed on the form 433-a had a total current fair_market_value of approximately dollar_figure additionally after the absence of factors weighing against equitable relief does not weigh in favor of granting relief--they are neutral doyel v commissioner tcmemo_2004_35 see 120_tc_137 in reaching this figure we used the following figures continued allowing petitioner expenses of dollar_figure listed on the form 433-a-- a figure provided on the form 433-a and not entirely substantiated by underlying evidence--petitioner had dollar_figure per month approximately dollar_figure per year available to pay toward the outstanding tax_liability we note that at trial mr bartak claimed that the amount of monthly wages should have been listed as dollar_figure as opposed to the dollar_figure listed on the form 433-a even if we were to accept this figure based on petitioner and mr bartak’ sec_2001 return it appears that they understated the amount of their monthly income the form 433-a reflects dollar_figure per month of interest and dividend whereas their return reported dollar_figure of taxable interest ie approximately dollar_figure per month and dollar_figure of dividend income ie approximately dollar_figure per month the return also reported dollar_figure of schedule e income ie approximately dollar_figure per month which is not reflected on the form 433-a if we continued dollar_figure for the checking accounts dollar_figure for the other accounts dollar_figure for the form 433-a investments the percent fair_market_value of the other investments the dollar_figure listed percent value adjusted to percent--ie dollar_figure divided by percent equals dollar_figure dollar_figure for the cars dollar_figure minus the outstanding debt of dollar_figure and dollar_figure for the equity in their home based on a fair_market_value of dollar_figure as listed on their tax bill minus the outstanding debt of dollar_figure the amount listed on their real_estate tax bill appears to represent fair_market_value cal rev tax code sec_110 sec_110 west this figure does not include the dollar_figure of credit petitioner listed as available on the form 433-a were to make all these adjustments total income would equal approximately dollar_figure per month leaving dollar_figure per month approximately dollar_figure per year available to pay towards the outstanding tax_liability petitioner did not present evidence that demonstrated that petitioner will be unable to pay her reasonable basic living_expenses if relief is not granted sec_301_6343-1 proced admin regs some of the expense figures provided on the form 433-a are unsupported and seem excessive accordingly we conclude that respondent was correct and did not abuse his discretion in determining that petitioner would not suffer economic hardship additional facts and circumstances petitioner claims that mr bartak played the dominant role in handling the financial affairs of their family and she did not have a choice not to sign the hoyt documents or her tax returns petitioner testified that mr bartak usually handled the family’s investments and that he would come to her about an investment after he investigated it and thought they should invest petitioner may have left the final_decision to invest in the hoyt partnerships to mr bartak however petitioner acquiesced or agreed to go along with mr bartak’s wishes petitioner also claims that she did not want to sign the hoyt partnership documents or her returns petitioner however testified that she signed the documents to avoid making things difficult at home petitioner further testified that when she signed the tax returns in issue she would say i’m signing this under protest petitioner however explained that she merely stated this as an expression of her frustration and that she signed the returns in order to keep peace in the family petitioner and mr bartak testified that mr bartak did not force her or threaten her to sign the returns hoyt documents or checks did not force her or threaten her to invest in the hoyt partnerships and that mr bartak did not abuse her petitioner also notes that mr bartak opened all the mail from the hoyt organization and the irs petitioner testified that she could have looked at the mail and mr bartak’s files regarding the hoyt partnerships if she had wanted mr bartak did not hide or try to hide any mail from petitioner petitioner testified that she saw everything that she wanted to see petitioner claims that mr hoyt’s deceit is relevant to the determination whether petitioner is entitled to relief under sec_6015 ms flandez considered the fact that both petitioner and mr bartak were deceived by mr hoyt even if mr hoyt’s deceit is relevant it does not lead to the result petitioner desires the purpose of sec_6015 is to protect one spouse from the overreaching or dishonesty of the other see purcell v commissioner f 2d pincite the understatement in tax in this case is attributable to a mistaken belief on the part of both petitioner and mr bartak as to the legitimacy of the tax_shelter deductions under these circumstances we perceive no inequity in holding both spouses to joint_and_several_liability 94_tc_126 affd 992_f2d_1132 11th cir 57_tc_732 in considering all the facts and circumstances it is worth noting that petitioner was skeptical about the supposed tax benefits provided by the hoyt partnerships petitioner testified that she was uncomfortable with the hoyt partnerships because she was leery that something like this ie the tax problems would happen and that she had a real foreboding about it petitioner also testified that she had an uneasy feeling about the tax aspects of the hoyt partnerships furthermore petitioner and mr bartak took hoyt partnership deductions on their return mr bartak testified that he thought he and petitioner invested in sge in they did not sign any documents however related to their investment in a hoyt partnership until date taking deductions for years prior to their investment in the hoyt partnerships should have raised additional suspicions ms flandez also noted that the arguments petitioner presented to her raised the possibility of asset transfers in an attempt to avoid collection petitioner also argues that respondent made blanket pro forma denials of hoyt investor sec_6015 claims we disagree respondent’s agents assigned to review petitioner’s claim conducted a full impartial and fair evaluation of petitioner’s sec_6015 claim they reached their conclusions on the basis of the facts and circumstances present in this case see also doyel v commissioner tcmemo_2004_35 in which we further explained the flaws in petitioner’s arguments on this issue on the basis of all the facts and circumstances we conclude that respondent did not abuse his discretion in denying petitioner relief pursuant to sec_6015 in reaching our holdings we have considered all arguments made by the parties and to the extent not mentioned above we conclude they are irrelevant or without merit to reflect the foregoing decision will be entered for respondent


jm yes internal_revenue_service department d2 washington dc contact person telephone numb in reference to aug dale op-e-e0 ty dear sir or madam this is in reference to your letter of date requesting advance approval of your grant procedures under sec_4945 of the internal_revenue_code the information submitted indicates that grants will be is exempt from federal administered and supervised by b b income_tax under sec_501 of the internal_revenue_code and has been classified as other than a private_foundation under sec_509 and b a vi under the terms of an your scholarship program is called c an to fund a full-time undergraduate course of study at agreement you will make annual contributions to b scholarships for the benefit of high school seniors who plan to enroll in accredited two or four year college university or vocational - technical school b will prepare and furnish application forms receive all applications determine the recipients and amount to be awarded notify the recipients of the award confirm enrollment in an educational_institution make payment of the award and supervise and investigate the use of the grant funds by the recipients in their educational programs recipients are determined solely by b utilizing selection criteria whereby each candidate is evaluated based on the following scholastic aptitude as measured by performance on the scholastic aptitude test scholastic performance measured by rank in class counselor appraisal and interests activities and leadership contributions the amount of the award be considered in determining financial need wil y scholarships will only be awarded to students that plan to enroll in an institution that meets the requirements of sec_170 b a ii restricted in his her course of study the recipient will not be of the code sec_4945 of the code provides for the imposition of taxes on each taxable_expenditure of a private_foundation sec_4945 of the code provides that the term taxable_expenditure private_foundation as or other similar purposes by such individual unless such grant satisfies the requirements of sec_4945 g means any amount_paid or incurred by a a grant to an individual for travel study sec_4945 of the code provides that sec_4945 d shall not apply to an individual grant awarded on an objective and nondiscriminatory basis pursuant to a procedure approved in advance by the secretary if is demonstrated to the satisfaction of the secretary that the grant constitutes a scholarship or fellowship_grant which is subject_to the provisions of sec_117 educational_institution described in sec_170 b a ii the code to be used for study at and is an it of since your scholarships are not employer-related grants the provisions of revproc_76_47 are not applicable based upon the information submitted and assuming your program will be conducted as proposed with a view to providing objectivity and nondiscrimination in the awarding of scholarship grants we rule that your grants to b for the awarding of scholarship grants comply with the requirements of sec_4945 with these procedures will not constitute taxable_expenditures within the meaning of sec_4945 are eligible for the exclusion from income provided for in sec_117 a actually used for qualified_tuition_and_related_expenses within the meaning of sec_117 of the code to the extent that such grants are thus expenditures made in accordance of the code of the code of the code and as such this ruling is conditioned on the understanding that there is based will be no material changes in the facts upon which it it is further conditioned on the understanding that no grants will be awarded to creators officers directors trustees or members of the selection committee or for a purpose inconsistent with the purposes deseribed in sec_170 b the code of please note that this ruling is only applicable to grants awarded under your scholarship program as outlined above before you enter into any other scholarship programs you should submit a request for advance approval of that program we are informing your key district_director of this action please keep a copy of this ruling with your organization's permanent records this ruling is directed only to the organization that requested it may not be used or cited as precedent sec_6110 of the code provides that it sincerely yours merete vv sa0k gerald v sack chief exempt_organizations technical branch


t c memo united_states tax_court regina s davis petitioner v commissioner of internal revenue respondent docket no 5882-o00l filed date regina s davis pro_se stephen j neubeck for respondent memorandum opinion powell special_trial_judge this case is before the court on respondent’s motion for summary_judgment and petitioner’s motion to strike for lack of personam sic jurisdiction petitioner seeks review of respondent’s denial of relief under - - sec_6330 at the time the petition was filed petitioner resided in cincinnati ohio the facts may be summarized as follows respondent issued notices of deficiency determining deficiencies in petitioner’s federal income taxes and additions to tax rounded to the nearest dollar as follows additions to tax_year deficiency sec_6651 a sec_6654 dollar_figure dollar_figure dollar_figure big_number big_number big_number big_number big_number big_number the notices were sent to petitioner pincite high meadows drive cincinnati ohio this is the same address shown on the petition filed in this case petitioner did not file a petition to seek review of respondent’s determinations of the deficiencies and additions to tax and respondent assessed the liabilities on or about date respondent sent a notice_of_intent_to_levy and petitioner requested a hearing pursuant to sec_6330 on date after a hearing before an appeals officer respondent notified petitioner that her objections to collection were denied unless otherwise indicated section references are to the internal_revenue_code in effect for the years in issue and all rule references are to the tax_court rules_of_practice and procedure on date petitioner filed a petition in this court to review respondent’s actions the petition simply alleges that petitioner was denied a lawful due process hearing respondent filed an answer respondent subsegquently filed a motion for summary_judgment sec_6331 provides that if any person liable to pay any_tax neglects or refuses to pay such tax within days of notice_and_demand for payment the secretary may collect such tax by levy upon the taxpayer’s property sec_6330 generally provides that the secretary cannot proceed with the collection_of_taxes by way of a levy until the taxpayer has been given notice and an opportunity for administrative review in the form of an appeals_office hearing sec_6330 provides issues at hearing --- a in general --the person may raise at the hearing any relevant issue relating to the unpaid tax or the proposed levy including-- appropriate spousal defenses challenges to the appropriateness of collection actions and offers of collection alternatives which may include the posting of a bond the substitution of other assets an installment_agreement or an offer-in-compromise b underlying liability --the person may also raise at the hearing challenges to the existence or amount of the underlying tax_liability for any_tax period if the person did not receive any statutory sec_6330 was enacted by the internal_revenue_service restructuring and reform act of publaw_105_206 112_stat_746 q4e- notice_of_deficiency for such tax_liability or did not otherwise have an opportunity to dispute such tax_liability the determination of the appeals officer may be reviewed judicially if the taxpayer files a timely petition in this court or in an appropriate united_states district_court see sec_6330 in 114_tc_176 we noted that where the validity of the underlying tax_liability is properly at issue the court will review the matter on a de novo basis however where the validity of the underlying tax_liability is not properly at issue the court will review the commissioner’s administrative determination for abuse_of_discretion the constitutionality of the levy provisions has long been established see 472_us_713 115_tc_35 we assume therefore that when petitioner refers to a denial of a due process hearing she is referring to statutory rights under sec_6330 rather than a constitutional attack on the levy power in the hearing before this court petitioner alleged that she was denied due process on the grounds that she is not a taxpayer because the internal revenue laws repealed the national prohibition act anything that was called adjusted_gross_income is actually the quam guam income_tax and that does not apply to petitioner the u s internal revenue - service is a function of the puerto rican bureau of alcohol_tobacco_and_firearms the secretary of health and human services is the only one who can determine wages the form_1040 was classified as a virgin island return and petitioner had no connection with the virgin islands it’s a felony to disclose the social_security_number to the internal_revenue_service prior to service of a notice and the internal_revenue_service is not an agency of the united_states initially we note that the petition for review of respondent’s determination to proceed with levying petitioner’s property does not satisfy the requirements of our rules rule b requires that the petition contain clear and concise assignments of each and every error in respondent’s determination and clear and concise statements of the facts on which petitioner bases each assignment of such error a general statement that petitioner was denied due process is insufficient in response to respondent’s motion for summary_judgment petitioner filed a motion to strike for lack of personam jurisdiction in which she states that the united_states tax_court lacks jurisdiction over states of the united_states of america and is limited to the states of the united_states which includes the district of columbia puerto rico virgin islands guam american samoa other unnamed possessions and insular possessions of the federal government petitioner’s conclusion is that the tax court’s jurisdiction is limited to the district of columbia puerto rico territories and insular possessions and accordingly the court lacks jurisdiction to accept motions filed by the commissioner -- - second as we understand petitioner’s position she contends that she is not liable for the taxes petitioner does not allege that she did not receive the notices of deficiency for the tax_liabilities in issue nor does she allege that she did not have an opportunity to contest the deficiencies under sec_6330 b a taxpayer is precluded from contesting the existence or amount of the tax_liability at an appeals_office hearing or in this court unless a taxpayer did not receive a notice_of_deficiency and did not otherwise have an opportunity to dispute such tax_liability see 115_tc_576 goza v commissioner supra pincite third even if petitioner were not precluded from contesting the liabilities the arguments that she makes are totally frivolous finally it should be pointed out that petitioner has not contended that any other issue under sec_6330 should have been considered she did not offer any collection alternative or offer-in-compromise as to these issues the propriety of respondent’s determination is deemed to be conceded see rule b in sum petitioner has not raised any issue that would call into question the correctness of respondent’s determination to proceed with the collection of the tax_liabilities under these circumstances it makes no difference whether we grant - respondent’s motion for summary_judgment or dismiss the case for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted in all events our decision affirms respondent’s determination to proceed with collection accordingly respondent’s motion is granted and petitioner’s motion shall be denied we next consider whether this court should impose a penalty against petitioner under sec_6673 that section provides that in proceedings before this court where the position of a taxpayer is frivolous or groundless the court may impose a penalty not to exceed dollar_figure in pierson v commissioner supra pincite the court warned that we would impose the sec_6673 a penalty in collection cases arising under sec_6320 and or sec_6330 if the taxpayer instituted or maintained such a case primarily for delay or took a position that was frivolous in such proceeding furthermore at the hearing in this case the court warned petitioner that the penalty could be imposed petitioner did not heed our warnings’ and persisted in making frivolous and groundless arguments accordingly we award a penalty to the united_states of dollar_figure under sec_6673 an appropriate order and decision will be entered ‘ wayne c bentson appeared with petitioner at the hearing and attempted to represent her bentson is not qualified to practice before this court and the court refused to recognize him bentson is no stranger to this court see bentson v commissioner tcmemo_1987_172 where we imposed damages under the statutory antecedent of sec_6673 of dollar_figure against bentson


t c memo united_states tax_court c wayne lewis jr petitioner v commissioner of internal revenue respondent docket no filed date c wayne lewis jr pro_se randolph j buchanan for respondent memorandum findings_of_fact and opinion foley judge by notices dated date respondent determined deficiencies in and additions to petitioner’s and federal income taxes the issues for decision are whether petitioner received unreported income and is liable for sec_6651 and a additions to tax unless otherwise indicated all section references are to the internal_revenue_code in effect for the years in issue and continued findings_of_fact in petitioner provided services to highway master corp hmc and saunders-ream advertising marketing sram hmc and sram paid petitioner dollar_figure and dollar_figure respectively and issued him forms 1099-misc miscellaneous income reflecting such compensation in that same year salomon smith barney inc ssb paid petitioner dollar_figure of dividends and issued him a form 1099-div dividends and distributions reflecting such dividends in petitioner was employed by vu ryte inc vri vri paid petitioner dollar_figure and issued him a form_w-2 wage and tax statement reflecting this amount and dollar_figure of federal_income_tax withheld in petitioner continued employment with vri received a distribution from vri’s retirement_plan with merrill lynch ml and was involved in real_estate sales with hexter-fair title co hftc and community title ct vri paid petitioner dollar_figure and issued him a form_w-2 reflecting this amount and dollar_figure of federal_income_tax withheld hftc and ct paid petitioner dollar_figure and dollar_figure respectively and issued him forms 1099-s proceeds from real_estate transactions reflecting such proceeds ml distributed dollar_figure to petitioner from his vri retirement_plan and issued him a form 1099-r distributions from continued all rule references are to the tax_court rules_of_practice and procedure pensions annuities retirement or profit-sharing_plans iras insurance contracts etc reflecting such distribution on date respondent issued petitioner notices of deficiency relating to and in the notices respondent determined that petitioner received unreported income did not file federal_income_tax returns relating to those years and did not pay sufficient estimated_taxes relating to on date petitioner filed his petition and on date respondent filed his answer petitioner resided in tyler texas at the time he filed his petition opinion generally a notice_of_deficiency is presumed correct and the taxpayer bears the burden of proving that the determination is erroneous 290_us_111 the court_of_appeals for the fifth circuit where an appeal would lie has recognized however that a court need not give effect to the presumption of correctness in a case involving unreported income if the commissioner cannot present some predicate evidence supporting its determination 932_f2d_1128 5th cir affg in part and revg and remanding in part tcmemo_1990_68 petitioner raises numerous meritless contentions concedes that he provided services to hmc sram and vri and does not dispute that he received the amounts reflected in the third-party payment reports eg form_w-2 and form 1099-misc thus respondent has sufficiently connected petitioner to the underlying activities relating to the unreported income 117_f3d_785 5th cir when the taxpayer does not dispute the receipt of unreported income respondent has no duty to investigate a third-party payment report as a result respondent’s determinations are presumed correct and petitioner bears the burden_of_proof petitioner however failed to present any credible_evidence to counter respondent’s determinations accordingly we sustain the deficiencies as determined by respondent respondent also determined additions to tax for failure_to_file tax returns pursuant to sec_6651 and pay estimated income_tax pursuant to sec_6654 respondent pursuant to sec_7491 has met his burden of production relating to both additions to tax he established that petitioner failed to file his and tax returns and pay hi sec_2001 estimated_taxes 99_tc_202 petitioner’s failure_to_file was not due to reasonable_cause and he does not meet any of the exceptions to sec_6654 accordingly we sustain the sec_7491 is inapplicable because petitioner failed to introduce credible_evidence within the meaning of sec_7491 additions to tax as determined by respondent contentions we have not addressed are irrelevant moot or meritless to reflect the foregoing decision will be entered for respondent


defartment of the treasur pui 5v2 internal_revenue_service wasming tch o f e0her sree jan tax exempt anz government entities divicict uniform issue list se tt e_p rat ' legend taxpayer a hakkar ekkeereee aee ira x rrerekee kueakkekrekkaka kkkavkak heeharakkeeek vraaarerrarearuereareeaekeeek account d err keke kees rerkahaekekaeaer eka rake khekkekkkeeeee amount a sook kkk financial_institution b haaekeeaaerererererererraraeeaeregg financial_institution f krekkakkekakreareaereee tek ke eee eek ke ek ee date rkekkkarekaaerkkakiee date rerkkaererkka eea irie date rarakkaeeraekereeeeeeee date rerkkeeaeeereeteaeeee dear kekkkkekrakere ks this is in response to a request submitted on your behalf by your authorized representative dated as supplemented by additional took dei page of q j y a correspondence submitted on arerearara ates hrekekereakekekeek and ilalalialalelalalalelslalslalaislalsiel in which taxpayer a request a waiver of the 60-day rollover requirement contained in sec_408 of the internal_revenue_code the code the following facts and representations have been submitted under penalty of perjury in support of the ruling requested taxpayer a age had an individual_retirement_arrangement ira ira x which was maintained by financial_institution b taxpayer a represents that on date amount a was transferred from ira x to account d which was maintained by financial_institution b account d is a non-ira account taxpayer a has stated that it was his intent to complete a rollover of amount a within the statutorily required 60-day period taxpayer a asserts that his failure to accomplish a rollover of amount a within the 60-day period prescribed by sec_408 of the code was due to an error committed by financial_institution b taxpayer a represents that amount a has not been used for any other purpose taxpayer a has provided documentation that he elected to transfer amount a from ira x with financial_institution b to an ira with financial_institution f taxpayer a has provided documentation that on date he furnished paper work to financial_institution f demonstrating his intent to transfer amount a from ira x to a new ira with financial_institution f and on date financial_institution b issued a letter recognizing taxpayer a’s intent to transfer amount a from ira x to a new ira taxpayer a has provided documentation that both financial_institution b and financial_institution d were aware of his intent to transfer his funds from ira x to a new ira with financial_institution f taxpayer a has provided a letter from financial_institution b dated date reflecting that an administrative error occurred in the transfer based on the facts and representations taxpayer a requests a ruling that the internal_revenue_service waive the 60-day rollover requirement with respect to the distribution of amount a contained in sec_408 of the code in this instance sec_408 of the code provides that except as otherwise provided in sec_408 any amount_paid or distributed out of an ira shall be included in gross_income by the payee or distributee as the case may be in the manner provided under sec_72 of the code sec_408 of the code defines and provides the rules applicable to ira_rollovers sec_408 of the code provides that sec_408 of the code does not apply to any amount_paid or distributed out of an ira to the individual for whose benefit the ira is maintained if-- krekkkkkkke page of i the entire amount received including money and any other_property is paid into an ira for the benefit of such individual not later than the day after the day on which the individual receives the payment or distribution or ii the entire amount received including money and any other_property is paid into an eligible_retirement_plan other than an ira for the benefit of such individual not later than the day after the date on which the payment or distribution is received except that the maximum amount which may be paid into such plan may not exceed the portion of the amount received which is includible in gross_income determined without regard to sec_408 sec_408 of the code provides that sec_408 does not apply to any amount described in sec_408 received by an individual from an ira if at any time during the 1-year period ending on the day of such receipt such individual received any other amount described in sec_408 from an ira which was not includible in gross_income because of the application of sec_408 sec_408 of the code provides that the rollover provisions of sec_408 d do not apply to any amount required to be distributed undér sec_408 sec_408 d i of the code provides that the secretary may waive the day requirement under sec_408 of the code where the failure to waive such requirement would be against equity or good conscience including casualty disaster or other events beyond the reasonable control of the individual subject_to such requirement only distributions that occurred after date are eligible for the waiver under sec_408 of the code revproc_2003_16 2003_4_irb_359 date provides that in determining whether to grant a waiver of the 60-day rollover requirement pursuant to sec_408 of the code the service will consider all relevant facts and circumstances including errors committed by a financial_institution inability to complete a rollover due to death disability hospitalization incarceration restrictions imposed by a foreign_country or postal error the use of the amount distributed for example in the case of payment by check whether the check was cashed and the time elapsed since the distribution occurred the information presented and documentation submitted by taxpayer a is consistent with his assertion that his failure to accomplish a timely rollover was caused by an error committed by financial_institution b rrekkeekkee page of therefore pursuant to sec_408 of the code the service hereby waives the 60-day rollover requirement with respect to the distribution of amount a from ira x taxpayer a is granted a period of days from the issuance of this letter_ruling to contribute amount a into a rollover ira provided all other requirements of sec_408 of the code except the 60-day requirement are met with respect to such contribution amount a will be considered a rollover_contribution within the meaning of sec_408 of the code this ruling does not authorize the rollover of amounts that are required to be distributed by sec_401 of the code made applicable to iras pursuant to sec_408 no opinion is expressed as to the tax treatment of the transaction described herein under the provisions of any other section of either the code or regulations which may be applicable thereto this letter is directed only to the taxpayer who requested it sec_6110 of the code provides that it may not be used or cited as precedent pursuant to a power_of_attorney on file with this office a copy of this letter_ruling is being sent to your authorized representative if you wish to inquire about this ruling please contact tay law specialist employee_plans technical group at or via fax at s please address all correspondence to se t ep ra t2 sincerely lenz eek ee manager employee_plans technical group enclosures deleted copy of ruling letter notice of intention to disclose cc rekrkrkkerkerekererkkekakk rekkeekekekekaema kaka ak e hakkkkkkkekekerereekekkkee


id office uilc cca_2009090216302337 ---------- number release date from ------------------- sent wednesday september pm to ------------------------- cc ---------------------------------- subject re sec_42 recapture partnership affected or nonpartnership item this would be an affected_item we can issue an affected_item notice_of_deficiency without conducting a tefra proceeding but will be bound the partnership books_and_records in computing the basis for the credit see 94_tc_853 pincite


department of the treasury internal_revenue_service washington d c november number release date cc intl br6 wta-n-112983-99 uilc internal_revenue_service national_office field_service_advice memorandum for from steven a musher branch chief cc intl br6 subject this field_service_advice responds to your memorandum dated date field_service_advice is not binding on examination or appeals and is not a final case determination this document is not to be used or cited as precedent legend corporation x corporation y product group a division year sec_1 - issue whether corporation y having elected cost sharing under sec_936 is entitled to the benefits of location_savings as provided in revproc_63_10 if so whether this answer is affected by the fact that corporation x’s major competitors also have manufacturing subsidiaries in puerto rico conclusion as long as revproc_63_10 is in effect the benefit of location_savings as provided in revproc_63_10 applies when the cost plus method of pricing is used in conjunction with a cost sharing election under sec_936 since the rev_proc allocates location_savings to the puerto rican affiliate regardless of whether location_savings would have been so allocated by the market the presence of corporation x’s major competitors in puerto rico does not affect this answer facts corporation x a u s_corporation has a wholly owned subsidiary_corporation y which manufactures product group a in puerto rico product group a represents a type of product that is manufactured in the united_states division of corporation x purchases over of corporation y’s output the remainder is purchased by other divisions of corporation x the transfer prices between division and corporation y are being examined when division bought products from corporation y it resold of them to unrelated parties and retained of them for either retail_sale or integration into other products corporation x characterizes the method used to set prices between corporation y and division as a variant of the resale_price_method corporation x’s method involves starting with the resale prices charged by division to unrelated parties which vary according to whether those parties are manufacturers or distributors and according to the volume of products sold subtracting expenses estimated pincite of the net average sales_price and subtracting the net profit of comparable product group a distributors estimated pincite of the net average sales_price this results in a price to corporation y equal to of the average resale price the service proposes to make a sec_482 allocation of income to corporation x based on a cost plus methodology the regulations apply to the years in issue years and corporation x has not yet elected to apply the sec_482 regulations law and analysis sec_482 provides that the secretary may allocate income deductions credits and allowances between two or more commonly_controlled_organizations_trades_or_businesses in order to prevent evasion of taxes or to clearly reflect the income of any of such organizations trades_or_businesses for taxable years beginning on or before date sec_1 2a e ii establishes the following mandatory order of priority for methods of determining the arm’s length price of tangible_property comparable_uncontrolled_price_method resale_price_method cost plus method and any other appropriate method for taxable years beginning after date and for cases where the taxpayer has elected pursuant to sec_1_482-1 to apply the final sec_482 regulations retroactively sec_1_482-1 provides as follows the arm’s length result of a controlled_transaction must be determined under the method that under the facts and circumstances provides the most reliable measure of an arm’s length result thus there is no strict priority of methods and no method will invariably be considered to be more reliable than others an arm’s length result may be determined under any method without establishing the inapplicability of another method but if another method subsequently is shown to produce a more reliable measure of an arm’s length result such other method must be used similarly if two or more applications of a single method provide inconsistent results the arm’s length result must be determined under the application that under the facts and circumstances provides the most reliable measure of an arm’s length result corporation y has made a cost sharing election pursuant to sec_936 that is it has agreed to bear its portion of the related group’s product_area research expenses and to be treated as owning the nonmarketing intangibles associated with the products it manufactures for purposes of earning a return on such intangibles as a consequence of such election corporation y and corporation x are required to determine the intercompany_pricing of products under the appropriate sec_482 pricing method sec_936 use of the resale_price_method may not be denied merely because the reseller adds more than an insubstantial amount to the value of the products by the use of intangible_property id sec_1_936-6 q a however revproc_63_10 1963_1_cb_490 sets forth guidelines to be followed for the proper application of sec_482 in cases involving the allocation of income and expenses between u s companies and their puerto rican manufacturing affiliates sec_3 of revproc_63_10 provides that in situations where there are no independent prices for the products involved in related_party sales and when the product in question represents a type which is manufactured in the united_states or for which it is reasonable to assume that the mainland affiliate could without incurring a loss have contracted for united_states manufacture the best approximation of the arm's length price is the price necessary to induce a u s manufacturer to produce in the united_states the product in question for the mainland affiliate adjusted for any differences in costs incident to transportation this effectively allocates all income or loss resulting from the choice of puerto rico as the manufacturing venue to the puerto rican affiliate having elected to share the related group’s product_area research expenses pursuant to sec_936 for purposes of being treated as the owner of the nonmarketing intangibles associated with its products corporation y is required to price its products to division1 under an appropriate sec_482 method ie a method which includes a return on the nonmarketing intangibles during the years in issue sec_1_482-2a prioritized the methods of computing transfer prices for tangible_property with a requirement that the higher ranked method be used if the conditions for using that method were met the final sec_482 regulations which taxpayers may elect retroactively require the use of the best_method ie the one which provides the most reliable measure of an arm’s length result when it is available the most reliable method is generally the comparable uncontrolled price cup_method which evaluates whether the amount charged in a controlled_transaction is arm’s length by reference to the amount charged in a comparable_uncontrolled_transaction corporation x and the service agree that cups do not exist for the products manufactured by corporation y although corporation x has characterized its methodology as a variant of the resale_price_method it does not qualify as a resale_price_method because that method requires the utilization of an appropriate_gross_profit_markup expressed as a percentage of sales sec_1_482-2a when net profits are used they introduce many discretionary expenditures that may vary from company to company corporation x has expressed its markup percentage as a percentage of sales but the markup being used is a net profit markup percentage while corporation x’s method might be reasonable under certain facts and circumstances it is a fourth method rather than a resale_price_method neither corporation x nor the service has developed the information necessary to determine an appropriate_gross_profit_markup percentage for product group a distributors and consequently the resale_price_method is unavailable the service proposes to make sec_482 allocations by adjusting the prices for products sold by corporation y to division using a cost plus method which would allow corporation y a markup on its costs plus a return on the value of the nonmarketing intangibles if any this raises the question of whether corporation x should also get the benefit of any location_savings as provided in revproc_63_10 this revenue_procedure provided special rules for applying sec_482 to situations involving u s companies with puerto rican manufacturing affiliates sec_3 of the revenue_procedure states that in instances where no independent prices exist and the product in question represents a type which is manufactured in the united_states or for which it is reasonable to assume that the mainland affiliate could without incurring a loss have contracted for united_states manufacture the best approximation of the arm's length price is the price that would have been necessary to induce a u s manufacturer to produce the goods in question adjusted for any differences in transportation costs in effect the methodology takes the expenditures of the puerto rican entity and adjusts them by any increases or decreases that would have resulted from conducting the activity in the u s and then allows the puerto rican entity a profit margin equivalent to that realized by similar u s manufacturers although revproc_63_10 ante-dated the sec_482 regulations it was generally consistent with those regulations except to the extent that it allocated location_savings to the puerto rican affiliate under a modified cost plus method regardless of whether location_savings would have been allocated to the puerto rican affiliate by the market in revproc_68_22 1968_1_cb_819 the service stated that i n recognition that puerto rican allocation problems arise in a unique factual context the guidelines of revproc_63_10 would continue to be used if the result is more favorable to the taxpayer than the result under the sec_482 regulations in congress made its own determination as to how it wanted income profits to be split between u s entities and their puerto rican manufacturing affiliates in essence sec_936 offers puerto rican manufacturers and their u s affiliates the choice of splitting their total combined income or paying an appropriate share of product_area research expenses and receiving a return on the manufacturing intangibles portion of the arm’s length price of the products sec_936 specifically provides that a company electing cost sharing shall determine its intercompany_pricing under the appropriate sec_482 method because the cost-plus location_savings method of revproc_63_10 is not a method provided in the sec_482 regulations the automatic allocation of location_savings to a puerto rican affiliate is arguably contrary to sec_936 the legislative_history of sec_936 is not clear whether revproc_63_10 should continue to apply in setting prices after a cost sharing election the conference_report on tefra h_r rep 97th cong 2d sess p contains a paragraph discussing pricing after a cost sharing payment is made the paragraph concludes with the following sentence the regulations under sec_482 and internal_revenue_service revenue procedures revenue_procedure as amplified by revenue_procedure will continue to apply except to the extent modified by the election there are two ways to interpret this sentence one interpretation is that the application of revproc_63_10 would need to be modified to reflect the fact that after a cost sharing election the island_affiliate would be the owner of the manufacturing intangibles in all other respects the rev_proc would continue to apply because the sentence falls under a section specifically dealing with pricing after a cost sharing election has been made it could be argued that congress intended the special benefits of revproc_63_10 as confirmed by revproc_68_22 to continue to apply after tefra in connection with calculating transfer prices a second interpretation of the legislative_history is that because the quoted sentence does not specifically mention location_savings the cost-plus pricing method of revproc_63_10 would be modified eliminated by a sec_936 election specifically by the provision in sec_936 stating that if an election of the cost sharing method is in effect the electing_corporation must determine its intercompany_pricing under the appropriate sec_482 method subject_to certain expressly provided flexibility regarding the resale_price_method in light of the ambiguity of the legislative_history one could conclude that the language of the statute should stand on its own ie the electing_corporation shall determine its intercompany_pricing under the appropriate sec_482 method however as long as revproc_63_10 is in effect the cost-plus pricing method of sec_3 should continue to be given effect when a sec_936 cost sharing election has been made and a cost-plus_method of pricing is used if location_savings are taken into account they should be taken into account both for purposes of calculating the income attributable to manufacturing intangibles and in setting intercompany prices so as to avoid double counting the fact that corporation x’s competitors also have manufacturing subsidiaries in puerto rico will not change this result in such a situation it is likely that any location_savings would not be allocated by the market to the puerto rican subsidiaries however as noted above the cost-plus_method of revproc_63_10 does not necessarily follow the arm’s length standard as currently embodied in the sec_482 regulations please call if you have any further questions steven a musher branch chief


internal_revenue_service number release date index number ---------------- ---------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------ -------------------------------- department of the treasury washington dc third party communication none date of communication not applicable_person to contact ---------------------- id no ----------------- telephone number -------------------- refer reply to cc psi b01 plr-120389-12 date november legend x ----------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------ state ------------- dear -------------- this letter responds to a letter dated date submitted on behalf of x by x’s authorized representative requesting a ruling under sec_7701 of the internal_revenue_code facts x is a limited_partnership organized under the laws of state x is a publicly_traded_partnership within the meaning of sec_7704 x through a subsidiary is engaged in the production and marketing of nitrogen fertilizer products x proposes selling its nitrogen fertilizer products including ammonia urea and uan fertilizer to customers operating in non-agricultural industries x also intends to sell nitric acid produced as an intermediary step in the production of its direct-application fertilizer products to customers operating in non-agricultural industries in addition x intends to expand its facility in order to enable it to produce and market urea in solution urea in solution is a compound of urea a nitrogen-based fertilizer and water or condensed steam urea in solution can be used to reduce nitrogen oxide emissions in diesel engines the urea in solution is processed within the vehicle where it is injected into the exhaust upstream of a catalyst where the urea in solution plr-120389-12 vaporizes and decomposes to form ammonia and carbon dioxide the ammonia works with a catalyst to convert nitrogen oxides to nitrogen and water steam which are then released in the vehicle’s exhaust x represents that each product will be sold for use in non-agricultural applications and the potential customers will not constitute end users of the products x seeks a ruling that income from the production and marketing of ammonia urea uan fertilizer nitric acid and urea in solution to customers operating in non-agricultural industries will constitute qualifying_income under sec_7704 law and analysis sec_7704 provides that except as provided in sec_7704 a publicly_traded_partnership will be treated as a corporation sec_7704 provides that the term publicly_traded_partnership means any partnership if interests in that partnership are traded on an established_securities_market or interests in that partnership are readily_tradable on a secondary market or the substantial equivalent thereof sec_7704 provides that sec_7704 does not apply to a publicly_traded_partnership for any taxable_year if such partnership meets the gross_income requirements of sec_7704 for the taxable_year and each preceding_taxable_year beginning after date during which the partnership or any predecessor was in existence sec_7704 provides in relevant part that a partnership meets the gross_income requirements of sec_7704 for any taxable_year if percent or more of the gross_income of the partnership for the taxable_year consists of qualifying_income sec_7704 provides that the term qualifying_income includes income and gains derived from the exploration development mining or production processing refining transportation including pipelines transporting gas oil or products thereof or the marketing of any mineral_or_natural_resource including fertilizer geothermal_energy and timber the conference_report accompanying the omnibus budget reconciliation act of states income and gains from certain activities with respect to minerals or natural_resources are treated as passive-type income specifically natural_resources include fertilizer geothermal_energy and timber as well as oil gas or products thereof for this purpose fertilizer includes plant nutrients plr-120389-12 such as sulphur phosphate potash and nitrogen that are used for the production of crops and phosphate-based livestock feed h_r rep no 100th cong 1st sess c b conclusion based solely on the materials submitted and the representations made we conclude that income derived by x from the production and marketing of ammonia urea uan fertilizer nitric acid and urea in solution for non-retail sale to customers operating in non-agricultural industries will constitute qualifying_income under sec_7704 to the extent that the products in question would otherwise be marketable as fertilizer for agricultural purposes except for the specific ruling above we express or imply no opinion concerning the federal tax consequences of this case under any other provision of the code specifically we express or imply no opinion as to whether x is taxable as a partnership for federal_income_tax purposes this ruling is directed only to the taxpayer requesting it however in the event of a technical_termination of x under sec_708 the resulting_partnership may continue to rely on this ruling in determining its qualifying_income under sec_7704 sec_6110 of the code provides that it may not be used or cited as precedent in accordance with the power_of_attorney on file with this office a copy of this letter is being sent to your authorized representative sincerely laura c fields laura c fields senior technician reviewer branch office of the associate chief_counsel passthroughs special industries enclosures copy of this letter copy for sec_6110 purposes cc


internal_revenue_service index no number release date cc ebeo 4-plr-113092-98 partnership a b c u v w x y z this is in reply to a request for rulings concerning the application of sec_162 of the internal_revenue_code and the regulations thereunder to certain compensation plans of partnership a b and c before and after a proposed transaction that will result in partnership’s activities being conducted by a corporation partnership is a limited_partnership whose units are publicly traded on the new york stock exchange its common equity securities are required to be registered under sec_12 of plr-113092-98 the securities exchange act of partnership represents that because of a qualifying exception under the code it is taxed as a partnership for federal_income_tax purposes a is a limited_partnership and the sole general_partner of partnership a initially has u percent of partnership’s profits and capital a’s share of partnership’s profits increases from u percent to v percent as partnership achieves certain economic benchmarks b is a corporation with only one class of issued and outstanding_stock partnership owns w percent of the stock of b and the remaining x percent is owned by a c is limited_partnership partnership owns a y percent limited_partner interest in c and a owns a z percent general_partner interest in c partnership intends to engage in a conversion_transaction whereby its activities will be conducted by a real_estate_investment_trust reit that is organized as a corporation and various subsidiary entities partnership a b and c have previously entered or will enter into various compensation plans for executives who upon the proposed conversion are to be treated as covered employees within the meaning of sec_162 of the code it is represented that the plans constitute unfunded nonqualified incentive and or deferred_compensation plans and provide for amounts to vest after years_of_service as well as the achievement of certain pre-established performance goals it is further represented that none of the plans qualify for the performance- based exception of sec_162 of the code it is anticipated that the conversion will be consummated prior to final payouts under the plans finally it is represented that information concerning the plans will be disclosed as required in the prospectus registration_statement and or other documents to be filed with the securities_and_exchange_commission consistent with all applicable laws in effect at the time of the conversion sec_162 of the code generally provides a limit of dollar_figure million on the deduction for compensation paid during any taxable_year for the chief_executive_officer and the other four highest compensated officers of any publicly_held_corporation sec_162 of the code defines publicly_held_corporation to mean any corporation issuing any class of common equity securities required to be registered under sec_12 of the securities exchange act of under sec_1_162-27 of the income_tax regulations a publicly_held_corporation includes an affiliated_group_of_corporations as defined in sec_1504 determined without regard to sec_1504 which lists exceptions to the definition for purposes of sec_162 an affiliated_group_of_corporations does not include any subsidiary that is itself a publicly_held_corporation sec_1504 a of the code defines the term affiliated_group to mean or more chains of includible corporations connected through stock ownership with a common parent_corporation plr-113092-98 if the common parent directly own sec_80 percent of the total voting power of the stock and has a value equal to at least percent of the total value of the stock of the corporation sec_1_162-27 of the regulations provides that in the case of a corporation that was not a publicly_held_corporation and then becomes a publicly_held_corporation the deduction limit does not apply to any remuneration paid pursuant to a compensation plan or agreement that existed during the period in which the corporation was not publicly held however in the case of such a corporation that becomes publicly held in connection with an initial_public_offering this relief applies only to the extent that the prospectus accompanying the initial_public_offering disclosed information concerning those plans or agreements that satisfied all applicable securities laws then in effect in accordance with sec_1_162-27 of the regulations a corporation that is a member_of_an_affiliated_group that includes a publicly_held_corporation is considered publicly held and therefore cannot rely on paragraph f sec_1_162-27 of the regulations provides that paragraph f may be relied upon until the earliest of one of the four following events i the expiration of the plan or agreement ii the material modification of the plan or agreement within the meaning of sec_1_162-27 of the regulations iii the issuance of all employer stock and other compensation that has been allocated under the plan or iv the first meeting of the shareholders at which directors are to be elected that occurs after the close of the third calendar_year in which the initial_public_offering occurs or in the case of a privately held corporation that becomes publicly held without an initial_public_offering the first calendar_year following the calendar_year in which the corporation becomes publicly held based solely on the facts presented partnership a and c are not corporations for federal_income_tax purposes and b is not a publicly_held_corporation any remuneration paid under a compensation plan or agreement during the period these entities are not publicly held corporations would be exempted from the deduction limitation provided in sec_162 the reit will be a publicly_held_corporation but the conditions for relief in sec_1_162-27 of the regulations will be satisfied therefore we rule that prior to the conversion partnership a b and c are not subject_to the deduction limitation of sec_162 of the code because they are not publicly held corporations within the meaning of sec_162 in accordance with sec_1_162-27 of the regulations the deduction limit of sec_162 will not apply to any remuneration paid pursuant to any of the plans in existence prior to the conversion this relief is provided until the earliest of one of the events listed in sec_1_162-27 of the regulations occurs plr-113092-98 this ruling is directed only to the taxpayer who requested it sec_6110 of the code provides that it may not be used or cited as precedent except as specifically ruled above no opinion is expressed as to the federal tax consequences of the transaction described above under any other provisions of the code sincerely yours _________________________ mark schwimmer chief branch office of the associate chief_counsel employee_benefits and exempt_organizations enclosure copy for sec_6110 purposes


office_of_chief_counsel department of the treasury i n t e r n a l r e v e n u e s e r v i c e washington d c date number info release date uil ----------------- ------------------------------------ --------------------------------- ------------------------ dear ------------ i apologize for the delay in responding to your letter of date to the secretary of treasury on behalf of ----------------------------------- requesting an extension of the placed-in-service date deadline of date under sec_168 of the internal_revenue_code the code an additional first year depreciation deduction is available for certain depreciable_property sec_168 of the code to qualify for the additional first year depreciation deduction the property must satisfy several requirements one of these requirements is that the taxpayer must have placed the property in service before date however for certain depreciable_property with a long production_period the taxpayer must have placed the property in service before date the gulf_opportunity_zone act of goza amended the internal_revenue_code to help people affected by hurricane katrina hurricane rita or hurricane wilma the goza provides that the secretary of treasury may extend the placed-in-service date of before date under sec_168 of the code for a period not to exceed year for certain property with a long production_period and for certain aircraft under certain circumstances sec_105 of the goza on date we published announcement 2006_19_irb_879 to implement sec_105 of the goza this announcement extends the placed-in-service date under sec_168 of the code to before date for certain property with a long production_period or for certain aircraft that the taxpayer places in service or that a person manufactures in the gulf opportunity go_zone the rita_go_zone or the wilma_go_zone if the taxpayer was unable to meet the date placed-in-service date deadline for the property as a result of hurricane katrina hurricane rita or hurricane wilma i am enclosing a copy of this announcement i hope this information is helpful if you have any questions please contact ------------ --- ------- identification_number ------------- at ----- ------------- sincerely charles b ramsey charles b ramsey branch chief branch passthroughs and special industries enclosure macro form rev department of the treasury - internal_revenue_service