PROCEDURALLY TAXING tax notes federal
by Jenni Black Jenni Black is a managing director in Citrin Cooperman’s national tax office and the practice leader of the tax procedure and controversy practice. She is also a contributing author for Procedurally Taxing. In this post, Black examines an order in which the Tax Court found that a partnership’s petition was timely, even though it wasn’t filed by its partnership representative, because it was ratified by the attorney hired to file it after the partnership representative suffered a disabling illness. This post reflects the author’s personal views and not necessarily those of Citrin Cooperman. On March 12, 2026, in Infinity Cycle LLC v. Commissioner, No. 9369-24 (T.C. 2026), the Tax Court entered an order denying respondent’s motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. At issue in the order was whether the correct person filed the petition and, if not, whether the petition could 1 be ratified. While the court ultimately held the petition was “ratified,” how the petition was ratified isn’t entirely clear and poses more questions than answers. Join me as we go to infinity, and beyond! The facts of this case are relatively straightforward. The partnership, Infinity Cycle, was being audited by the IRS for its 2018 tax year. Although it did not designate a partnership
representative (PR) on its original return (as required), it ultimately filed Form 8979 designating its lawyer, Mr. Knight, as PR for the 2018 tax year. Fast forward four years later and the IRS issues a notice of final partnership adjustment on March 11, 2024. The last day to file a petition in response to the FPA was June 10, 2024. According to the facts, Infinity Cycle attempted to contact its PR/attorney, Mr. Knight, upon receipt of the FPA only to learn that Mr. Knight, due to a medical 2 condition, was no longer practicing law. Infinity Cycle then engaged Mr. Green, who timely filed the petition on June 7, 2024. But what Infinity Cycle did not do was change its PR from Mr. Knight to Mr. Green. In fact, Infinity Cycle did not designate Mr. Green as its PR until almost a year after the time to file a petition expired. Additionally, as the petition did not contain information about the PR, as is required by Tax Court Rule 255.2(b)(1), it did not identify Mr. Knight or Mr. Green as the PR.3 On December 19, 2024, respondent amended its answer to allege the petition was not filed by the correct person. Four months later, petitioner (Infinity Cycle) filed Form 8979 to change its PR from Mr. Knight to Mr. Green. Immediately after that, petitioner filed a motion to amend its petition to list Mr. Green as its PR. On May 16, 2025, respondent filed a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction on the basis that the petition was not filed by someone with authority to file the petition. Under section 6234, a partnership has 90 days from when the FPA is mailed to file a petition in
2
The order does not state whether Mr. Knight still had capacity to act, even if he was no longer practicing law. 3
1
There was also an issue of substantial compliance and incorrectly filing out Form 8979, “Partnership Representative Designation or Resignation,” but this article doesn’t address that issue.
Although a BBA partnership case includes the name of the PR in the caption (I do not know why), it appears the original caption of the case first used the TEFRA styling and listed the managing member of Infinity Cycle as the “TMP” and then the caption was changed to remove all reference to a TMP or PR.
TAX NOTES FEDERAL, VOLUME 191, APRIL 20, 2026 For more Tax Notes® Federal content, please visit www.taxnotes.com.
383
© 2026 Tax Analysts. All rights reserved. Tax Analysts does not claim copyright in any public domain or third party content.
To Infinity, and Beyond: Ratification Under BBA