First, the period remains open if the partner has not been identified by submitting the required information to the IRS and remains open until one year after certain information is furnished to the Secretary. See Gaughf Props., L.P. v. Commissioner, 139 T.C. 219, 232-34 (2012), aff'd, 738 F.3d 415 (D.C. Cir. 2013). Second, the period remains open if the unidentified partner files inconsistently with the partnership's return and does not file a Form 8082, Notice of Inconsistent Treatment or Administrative Adjustment Request (AAR).
See Gaughf Props., L.P. v. Commissioner, 139 T.C. 219, 232 (2012) (citing Knudsen v. Commissioner, 131 T.C. 185 (2008), supplementing T.C. Memo. 2007-340), aff'd, 738 F.3d 415 (D.C. Cir. 2013).
. In Gaughf Properties, L.P. v. Commissioner, 139 T.C. 219, 234 (2012), aff'd, 738 F.3d 415 (D.C. Cir. 2013), we held that section 6229(e) applies to indirect partners.
This Court has traditionally taken the position that our responsibility is to apply the law to the facts of the case before us and not look at how other taxpayers have been treated. Gaughf Props., L.P. v. Commissioner, 139 T.C. 219, 254 (2012) (citing Davis v. Commissioner, 65 T.C. 1014, 1022 (1976)), aff'd, 738 F.3d 415 (D.C. Cir. 2013). If all trading software is to be treated as substantially identical software, it should have been included in the safe harbor or the regulation should have provided an additional safe harbor for it. As written, the safe harbor applies only to computer games and has no implications for whether a third-party vendor's trading software would qualify as substantially identical software.
In light of the detailed instructions as to how updating partnership information is to be furnished, it cannot be said that * * * [the] verbal exchanges with the revenue agent were sufficient to notify the appropriate IRS office of the partnership's change of address, * * * [and] the power of attorney in this case did not alter the IRS's obligations relating to the mailing of the FPAA * * * [Id. at 616.]Accord Int'l Strategic Partners, LLC v. Commissioner, 455 Fed. Appx. 91 (2d Cir. 2012); Gaughf Props., L.P. v. Commissioner, 139 T.C. 219 (2012); see also Triangle Investors Ltd. P'ship v. Commissioner, 95 T.C. 610, 611-612 (1990). In Triangle Investors Ltd. P'ship v. Commissioner, 95 T.C. 610, 611-612 (1990), the IRS mailed the FPAA to the address on the partnership return although the revenue agent who audited the partnership return knew that the partnership's current address was different, i.e., the tax matters partner had submitted a power of attorney form to the IRS stating that the IRS should use the new address and had orally advised the revenue agent of the new address. The Court held that the IRS had not been properly advised of a change of address for notice purposes, stating: