26 U.S.C. § 6222

Partner’s return must be consistent with partnership return

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 26 CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) In general

A partner shall, on the partner’s return, treat any partnership-related item in a manner which is consistent with the treatment of such item on the partnership return.

(b) Underpayment due to inconsistent treatment assessed as math error

Any underpayment of tax by a partner by reason of failing to comply with the requirements of subsection (a) shall be assessed and collected in the same manner as if such underpayment were on account of a mathematical or clerical error appearing on the partner’s return. Paragraph (2) of section 6213(b) shall not apply to any assessment of an underpayment referred to in the preceding sentence.

(c) Exception for notification of inconsistent treatment(1) In generalIn the case of any item referred to in subsection (a), if—(A)(i) the partnership has filed a return but the partner’s treatment on the partner’s return is (or may be) inconsistent with the treatment of the item on the partnership return, or(ii) the partnership has not filed a return, and(B) the partner files with the Secretary a statement identifying the inconsistency,subsections (a) and (b) shall not apply to such item.(2) Partner receiving incorrect informationA partner shall be treated as having complied with subparagraph (B) of paragraph (1) with respect to an item if the partner—(A) demonstrates to the satisfaction of the Secretary that the treatment of the item on the partner’s return is consistent with the treatment of the item on the statement furnished to the partner by the partnership, and(B) elects to have this paragraph apply with respect to that item.(d) Final decision on certain positions not binding on partnership

Any final decision with respect to an inconsistent position identified under subsection (c) in a proceeding to which the partnership is not a party shall not be binding on the partnership.

(e) Addition to tax for failure to comply with section

For addition to tax in the case of a partner’s disregard of the requirements of this section, see part II of subchapter A of chapter 68.

(Added Pub. L. 114–74, title XI, § 1101(c)(1), Nov. 2, 2015, 129 Stat. 626; amended Pub. L. 115–141, div. U, title II, § 201(c)(3), Mar. 23, 2018, 132 Stat. 1173.)Editorial NotesPrior Provisions

A prior section 6222, added Pub. L. 97–248, title IV, § 402(a), Sept. 3, 1982, 96 Stat. 648; amended Pub. L. 99–514, title XV, § 1503(c)(1), Oct. 22, 1986, 100 Stat. 2743; Pub. L. 101–239, title VII, § 7721(c)(7), Dec. 19, 1989, 103 Stat. 2400, required partner’s return to be consistent with partnership return or Secretary to be notified of inconsistency, prior to repeal by Pub. L. 114–74, title XI, § 1101(a), Nov. 2, 2015, 129 Stat. 625.

Amendments

2018—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 115–141 amended subsec. (a) generally. Prior to amendment, text read as follows: “A partner shall, on the partner’s return, treat each item of income, gain, loss, deduction, or credit attributable to a partnership in a manner which is consistent with the treatment of such income, gain, loss, deduction, or credit on the partnership return.”

Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesEffective Date of 2018 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 115–141 effective as if included in section 1101 of Pub. L. 114–74, see section 207 of Pub. L. 115–141, set out as a note under section 6031 of this title.

Effective Date

Section applicable to returns filed for partnership taxable years beginning after Dec. 31, 2017, with certain exceptions, see section 1101(g) of Pub. L. 114–74, set out as a note under section 6221 of this title.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 13 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1986–2022 · leading case: Cemco Investors, LLC v. United States, 515 F.3d 749 (7th Cir. 2008).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Cemco Investors, LLC v. United States, 515 F.3d 749 (7th Cir. 2008). “26 U.S.C. § 6222 (a). That’s why the Commissioner issued the Notice of Final Partnership Administrative Adjustment to Cemco and why it rather than Daugerdas or his client is the plaintiff.”

Bassing v. United States, 563 F.3d 1280 (Fed. Cir. 2009). · cites it 2× “Bassing’s negative capital account balance of $882,871 was a partnership item because it represented an amount determined by the partnership under its capital account maintenance rules, which constituted an accounting practice adopted by the partnership and applicable to all the…”

Bob Hamric Chevrolet, Inc. v. USA, Internal Revenue Serv., 849 F. Supp. 500 (W.D. Tex. 1994). “26 U.S.C. § 6222 (a). If the partner does not treat a partnership item consistently with the partnership return, he is required to notify the Service of the inconsistent treatment.”

Randall S. Goulding v. United States, 957 F.2d 1420 (7th Cir. 1992). “See 26 U.S.C. § 6222 . Because appellant’s analysis of the partnership’s financial operations was in essence an analysis of income directly taxable to the partners and losses directly deductible by them, the regulation making him the preparer of their returns reflects the real…”

Russian Recovery Fund Ltd. v. United States, 101 Fed. Cl. 498 (Fed. Cl. 2011). “Defendant asserts that FFIP was required under 26 U.S.C. § 6222 to notify the IRS that it was not reporting the losses in the same year as RRF, the partnership that assigned FFIP the losses.”

Snyder v. United States, 630 F. Supp. 182 (D. Maryland 1986). “However, 26 U.S.C. § 6222 provided that beginning on January 1, 1983 interest was to be compounded daily at the rate established under § 6621.”

United States v. Bailey, 789 F. Supp. 788 (N.D. Tex. 1992). “See 26 U.S.C. § 6222 (1986 & Supp.1989). 7 . Although an employee is not required to treat as income reimbursement of business expenses he receives, monies received as reimbursement are taxable if the employee is not required to substantiate the expenses intended to be covered…”

Schumacher Trading Partners II v. United States, 72 Fed. Cl. 95 (Fed. Cl. 2006). “; see also 26 U.S.C. § 6222 (a) (“A partner shall, on the partner’s return, treat a partnership item in a manner which is consistent with the treatment of such partnership item on the partnership return.”

Wallis v. Comm'r of the Internal Revenue Serv., 391 F. App'x 826 (11th Cir. 2010). “” 26 U.S.C. § 6222 (b)(1). Given that Donald Wallis has 35 years of experience as a tax lawyer, the Tax Court reasonably could conclude that Wallis should have been aware there were inconsistencies between (1)his not reporting the Schedule C payments at all to the IRS and (2)…”

River City Ranches v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue, 401 F.3d 1136 (9th Cir. 2005). “26 U.S.C. § 6222 (subtitle F provision for administering subtitle A requirements).”

Ivanhoe v. United States (D. Conn. 2022). · cites it 2× “” 26 U.S.C. §6222 (a). “[I]f a partner treats items inconsistently with the partnership’s treatment of those items, a deficiency may be assessed against the partner without notice, as a ‘computational adjustment.”

Latitude Serv. Co. v. Reese (N.D. Ind. 2022). “Moreover, although Latitude points out that 26 U.S.C. §§ 6222 (c) and 6037(c) provide a remedy for situations where a partner or a shareholder takes an inconsistent position with the company’s tax return,4 Mr.”

Show all 13 citing cases →

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.