Full opinion text
JUDGE POOLER concurs, in part, in a separate opinion. LEVAL, Circuit Judge: Elizabeth N. Callaway (“the taxpayer” or “Elizabeth”) appeals from so much of the March 10, 1998 Opinion and Order and the November 17, 1998 Decision of the United States Tax Court (Peter J. Panut-hos, Chief Special Trial Judge) that held that computational adjustments and subsequent affected items notices of deficiency issued to her were valid and were not time-barred. We have jurisdiction pursuant to I.R.C. § 7482(a). This is a case of first impression in the Courts of Appeals, raising an issue of partnership taxation procedure: A husband held a partnership interest as separate property but filed a joint tax return with his wife thereby taking his distributive share of the partnership’s tax items into account in computing the tax owed on the couple’s aggregate income. See I.R.C. §§ 702, 6013(a), (d)(3); Treas. Reg. §§ 1.702-l(a), 1.6013-4(b). The husband died, and his estate filed a request for prompt assessment. See I.R.C. § 6501(d). As a result of the request, the husband’s share of the partnership’s tax items converted from partnership items into non-partnership items. See I.R.C. § 6231(b)(1)(D), (c)(1); Temp. Treas. Reg. § 301.6231(c)-8T. The question presented is what effect that conversion has on the procedures for assessing deficiencies attributable to those same items against his wife. We conclude that where only the husband owned an interest in his distributive share of partnership items, the conversion of his partnership items into nonpartnership items necessarily converts into nonpartnership items all the items taken into account on the joint return by reason of his interest. They are therefore nonpartnership items with respect to assessments against either spouse. As a consequence: (1) statutory notice of deficiency procedures apply to an assessment of deficiencies attributable to these items against either spouse, see I.R.C. § 6230(a)(2)(A)(ii); and (2) the statute of limitations period will be the greater of one year or such longer period as remains open against either spouse. See I.R.C. § 6229(f). Applying these conclusions of law to the facts of this case, we conclude the Commissioner had until December 23, 1992 to issue any statutory notice of deficiency to either taxpayer or her deceased spouse’s estate. The 1993 “precautionary” assessments, the 1996 computational adjustments and the 1996 affected items notices of deficiency were therefore procedurally invalid and time barred, with respect to both the taxpayer and her deceased spouse’s estate. We therefore reverse the Tax Court’s ruling and remand for further proceedings. BACKGROUND A. TEFRA’s Statutory and Regulatory Framework. Under the Internal Revenue Code (the “Code”) partnerships are not taxable entities. See I.R.C. § 701; Treas. Reg. § 1.701-1. Therefore, unlike individuals and corporations, partnerships do not file tax returns; instead they file information returns. See I.R.C. § 6031; Treas. Reg. § 1.6031-1. While partnerships are not taxed, taxes are imposed on their partners on a pass-through basis. Each partner is individually required to take into account his distributive share of the partnership’s tax items in computing his income tax liability. See I.R.C. §§ 701, 702; Treas. Reg. § 1.702-l(a). Prior to 1982, adjustments to the tax liability of the individual partners based on the operations of the partnership were determined at the individual partners’ level. This resulted in duplication of administrative and judicial resources and sometimes in inconsistent results as between partners. See Randell v. United States, 64 F.3d 101, 103 (2d Cir.1995). The Internal Revenue Service was obligated to audit each partner individually to conform the tax treatment of all the partners. To extend the statute of limitations with respect to the partners’ liability for the operation of the partnership, the IRS needed to obtain consent for an extension from each of the partners, not the partnership. Similarly, settlement agreements or judicial determinations with regard to one partner were not binding on the other partners. And because the IRS might fail to complete these individual audits and adjustments before the statute of limitations expired with respect to a partner, inconsistent treatment of similarly situated taxpayers could result. See generally H.R. Conf. Rep. No. 97-760, at 699 (1982), U.S. Code Cong. & Admin. News at 1190, 1371, reprinted, in 1982-2 C.B. 600, 662. To ameliorate these difficulties, Congress enacted the Tax Treatment of Partnership Items Act of 1982, as Title IV of the Tax Equality and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982 (“TEFRA”), Pub.L. No. 97-248, 96 Stat. 324, 648, now codified as amended as subchapter C of Chapter 63 of the Code, at sections 6221 to 6234. The TEFRA provisions establish a single unified procedure for determining the tax treatment of all partnership items at the partnership level, rather than separately at the partner level. See H.R. Conf. Rep. No. 97-760, at 599-600. Under the TEFRA provisions “the tax treatment of any partnership item ... shall be determined at the partnership level.” I.R.C. § 6221. A “partnership item” is a tax item “more appropriately determined at the partnership level than at the partner level.” I.R.C. § 6231(a)(3). As prescribed by the Regulations, the term “partnership item” includes “[t]he partnership aggregate and each partner’s share of ... [i]tems of income, gain[,] loss, deduction, or credit of the partnership.” Treas. Reg. § 301.6231(a)(3)-l(a)(l)(i). A “non-partnership item” is one that is “not a partnership item.” I.R.C. § 6231(a)(4). The determination whether an item is a “partnership item” or a “nonpartnership item” is the threshold question for the application of the TEFRA procedures. While partnership items are subject to TEFRA’s centralized audit procedures, see I.R.C. §§ 6211(c), 6216(4), 6221, 6230(a)(1), the tax treatment of nonpartnership items is determined at the level of the individual partner’s return, pursuant to the notice of deficiency procedures of subchapter B of Chapter 63, sections 6211 to 6216. See I.R.C. §§ 6212(a), 6230(a)(2). The text and structure of the Code, as well as the legislative history of the TEFRA provisions, leave no doubt that Congress intended the procedures of subchapters B and C to have mutually exclusive jurisdiction over nonpartnership and partnership items respectively. See generally Maxwell v. Commissioner, 87 T.C. 783, 788, 1986 WL 22033 (1986) (Congress intended existing rules relating to administrative and judicial proceedings, statutes of limitations and settlements to continue to govern determination of tax liability attributable to non-partnership items); H.R. Conf.Rep. 97-760, at 611 (“Neither the Secretary nor the taxpayer will be permitted to raise non-partnership items in the course of a partnership proceeding nor may partnership items, except to the extent they become nonpartnership items under the rules, be raised in proceedings relating to nonpart-nership items of a partner.”). In certain circumstances a partnership item may be “treated as” a nonpartnership item. See § 6231(a)(4), (b)(1). The effect of such a conversion is therefore to except the item in question from audit proceedings under subchapter C and subject it instead to notice of deficiency procedures under subchapter B. See I.R.C. § 6230(a)(2)(A)(ii). As set out later, this case involves such a conversion. In general, under subchapter C, a partner must file an income tax return that is consistent with the partnership return. See I.R.C. § 6222(a). The partner’s distributive share of any partnership item must be reported in the same manner as on the partnership’s information return (ie., it must have the same amount, the same characterization, the same timing). See id.; I.R.C. § 702(b); Treas. Reg. § 1.702-l(b), Temp. Treas. Reg. § 301.6222(a)-lT. If a partner-taxpayer disagrees with the partnership’s reporting of the partner’s distributive share of partnership items, the partner may either notify the IRS of his election to treat a partnership item inconsistently with its treatment on the partnership return, see 1.R.C. § 6222(b), or request an administrative adjustment of the partnership item, see I.R.C. § 6227(a). Otherwise, if 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.” See I.R.C. §§ 6222(c), 6230(a)(1); Temp. Treas. Reg. § 301.6231(a)(6)-lT(a); see, e.g., Bob Hamric Chevrolet, Inc. v. I.R.S., 849 F.Supp. 500, 510 (W.D.Tex.1994). “The term ‘computational adjustment’ means the change in the tax liability of a partner which properly reflects the treatment ... of a partnership item.” I.R.C. § 6231(a)(6). No further deficiency procedures are required. See Randell, 64 F.3d at 104. Such peremptory adjustments of a partner’s return are justified because the partner will already have benefitted from notice of and the right to participate in any proceeding under the TEFRA provisions to determine the partnership items at the partnership level. The IRS may adjust partnership items only at the partnership level and only after following the TEFRA procedures. See I.R.C. §§ 6221, 6225(a); Temp. Treas. Reg. § 301.6221-lT(a). To audit a partnership return, the IRS must send notice of the beginning of an administrative proceeding (“NBAP”) to the partners entitled to notice (the “notice partners”). See I.R.C. § 6223(a). The Code further provides that “[a]ny partner has the right to participate in any administrative proceeding relating to the determination of partnership items at the partnership'level.” I.R.C. § 6224(a). Similarly, if after completing its audit the IRS adjusts the partnership return, it must send the notice partners a notice of final partnership administrative adjustment (“FPAA”). See I.R.C. § 6223(a)(2), (d)(2). Within 90 days of the date the IRS mails the FPAA notice, the partnership’s “tax matters partner” (TMP) may contest the FPAA by filing a petition for readjustment in Tax Court, the Court of Federal Claims or the appropriate federal district court. See I.R.C. § 6226(a). If the TMP does not file a petition within this period, then any notice partner may file a petition for readjustment within the next 60 days. See I.R.C. § 6226(b)(1). Regardless whether the petition for judicial readjustment is filed by the TMP or by a notice partner, all other partners are treated as parties to the suit, provided that they have an ongoing interest in the outcome of the proceedings. See I.R.C. § 6226(c), (d). In this manner TEFRA allows all partners, if they choose, to litigate a dispute with the IRS in a single proceeding that binds all. After the FPAA adjustments become final (ie., after they go unchallenged for 150 days- or are judicially resolved in a section 6226 proceeding), the IRS may assess partners with the tax which properly accounts for their distributive share of the adjusted partnership items, without notice, as a computational adjustment. See I.R.C. §§ 6225(a), 6230(a)(1), 6231(a)(6). In certain cases, where no further factual determinations are necessary at the partner level, an assessment attributable to an “affected item” may also be made by computational adjustment. See N.C.F. Energy Partners v. Commissioner, 89 T.C. 741, 744, 1987 WL 45298 (1987); Temp. Treas. Reg. § 301.6231(a)(6)-lT(a). An “affected item” is “any item to the extent such item is affected by a partnership item.” I.R.C. § 6231(a)(5); see also Temp. Treas. Reg. § 301.6231(a)(5)-lT(a). In other cases, where factual determinations are necessary at the partner level, assessments attributable to affected items may be made only after the conclusion of the partnership-level proceeding and then only by issuing a notice of deficiency pursuant to subchapter B. See I.R.C. § 6230(a)(2)(A)(i); N.C.F. Partners, 89 T.C. at 744-45. For all partnership taxable years at issue in this case, additions to tax for negligence and valuation overstatements attributable to adjusted partnership items are treated as affected items requiring partner level factual determinations. The TEFRA subchapter also provides the statute of limitations on assessments of tax attributable to a partner’s partnership items. In general, a three-year limitations period runs from the later of the date of filing of the partnership return or its due date. See I.R.C. § 6229(a) (taxes imposed under subtitle A), 6229(g) (applying same period to any addition to tax imposed under subchapter A of chapter 68). As to assessments attributable to partnership items, these provisions supersede the individual partner’s general three-year limitations period that begins to run on the filing of the taxpayer’s return. See I.R.C. § 6501(a), 6501(n)(2). The section 6229(a) period may be extended by agreement between a partner and the IRS; the TMP has the authority to execute an extension agreement binding on all partners, if entered into before the expiration of the period provided by subsection 6229(a). See I.R.C. § 6229(b)(1). The running of the limitations period is tolled while administrative and judicial proceedings under TEFRA are pending and for one year after the adjustments become final. See I.R.C. § 6229(d). Because, in general, adjustments to partnership items cannot be made except through TEFRA’s centralized proceedings, to ensure that any person whose tax liability may be affected by those procedures receives due process, TEFRA provides an expanded definition of “partner” and permits all such “partners” certain notice and participation rights. For the purposes of subchapter C, “[t]he term ‘partner’ means” both “(A) a partner in the partnership” and “(B) any other person whose income tax liability under subtitle A is determined in whole or in part by taking into account directly or indirectly partnership items of the partnership.” I.R.C. § 6231(a)(2). For our purposes, this statutory provision chiefly affects the spouses of members in a partnership. Ordinarily, there are two circumstances where a spouse’s tax liability will be determined in part by taking into account partnership items; each is expressly acknowledged under separate regulations, but each arises under this statutory provision. First, a spouse may own a joint interest in the member’s partnership interest. A joint interest “includes tenancies in common, joint tenancies, tenancies by the entirety and community property.” Temp. Treas. Reg. § 301.6231(a)(12)-lT(a). Such a spouse is treated as a partner. See id. Because such a spouse owns a share of the member’s distributive share of the partnership items, she will be required to take her share of those items into account whether she flies a joint or a separate tax return, see, e.g., Treas. Reg. § 1.702-l(d), and in either case, her tax liability will be determined in part by taking partnership items into account. Accordingly, such a spouse will be treated as a partner whether she flies jointly or separately. See I.R.C. § 6231(a)(2)(B). Her treatment as a partner derives, in part, from her property interest under state law. While both spouses holding a joint interest are treated as partners, the Code further provides that “a husband and wife who have a joint interest in a partnership shall be treated as 1 person.” I.R.C. § 6231(a)(12). Second, the spouse may own no interest in the member’s partnership interest. Nonetheless, if the spouse and the member file a joint return, because (1) the member will be required to take his distributive share of the partnership items into account in computing the couple’s aggregate income, see I.R.C. § 702(a); Treas. Reg. § 1.702-l(a); (2) a single tax liability is computed on the basis of this aggregate income, see I.R.C. § 6013(d)(3); and (3) each spouse’s liability for that tax is joint and several, see id., the spouse meets the requirements of Code section 6231(a)(2)(B) — that is, her tax liability is in part determined by taking into account partnership items. Accordingly, such a spouse is also “treated as a partner,” as confirmed by a separate regulation. Temp. Treas. Reg. § 301.6231(a)(2)-lT(a). However, such a spouse will not be treated as a partner, if she files separately and owns no interest in or share of the member’s partnership items. The purpose of the TEFRA provisions described above is to ensure that, in general, partnership items are adjusted once at the partnership level. All partners, whose tax liability will be affected by its outcome, have the opportunity to participate in the audit allowing each to be bound by its result. In general, there are few exceptions to these centralized procedures. However, one way for a partner to avoid being treated under the TEFRA framework is to fall within one of several limited exceptions that “the Secretary determines by regulation to present special enforcement considerations.” I.R.C. § 6231(c)(1)(E). Where the Secretary finds these special enforcement considerations to exist and where the Secretary determines “that to treat items as partnership items will interfere with the effective and efficient enforcement of this title” then “such items shall be treated as non-partnership items for the purpose of this subchapter.” I.R.C. § 6231(c)(2). By converting partnership items to nonpartnership items, the Secretary thereby excepts thena from the partnership-level TEFRA procedures and subjects them instead to the individual deficiency procedures under subchapter B. See I.R.C. § 6230(a)(2)(A)(ii). The Code further provides that, because the partner no longer has an interest in their outcome, this partner may no longer participate in, nor be bound as a party to, any judicial proceedings to readjust the partnership items at the partnership level. See I.R.C. §§ 6226(d), 6228(a)(4)(B); cf. Tax Ct. Rules 245(b), 247(a) reprinted following 26 U.S.C.A. § 7453. One such regulation promulgated under the Secretary’s authority pursuant to section 6231(c)(1)(E), provides that, when the estate of a deceased partner files a request for prompt assessment, its partnership items convert to non-partnership items: The treatment of items as partnership items with respect to a partner on whose behalf a request for prompt assessment of tax under section 6501(d) is filed will interfere with the effective and efficient enforcement of the internal revenue laws. Accordingly, partnership items of such a partner arising in any partnership taxable year ending with or within any taxable year of the partner with respect to which a request for a prompt assessment of tax is filed shall be treated as nonpartnership items as of the date that the request is filed. Temp. Treas. Reg. § 301.6231(c)-8T. As discussed below, it is undisputed that the effect of this regulation was to convert all the partnership items of the estate of James Callaway to nonpartnership items, as of the date his estate requested prompt assessment. As a consequence, the deficiency procedures of subchapter B applied to the assessment of taxes attributable to those items, see I.R.C. § 6230(a)(2)(A)(ii), and a shorter statute of limitations for assessing any tax attributable to those items was triggered pursuant to I.R.C. § 6229(f)(1)- At issue is the effect of this conversion on the procedures and limitations periods that applied to assessments against Elizabeth Callaway of taxes attributable to those same partnership losses as taken into account on the Callaways’ joint returns for 1986-1988. Against this statutory and regulatory background, we now turn to the facts. B. Facts. The facts were stipulated or are otherwise undisputed. Elizabeth Callaway, the taxpayer, is the widow of James Callaway (sometimes “decedent”), who died in 1990. During the taxable years 1986, 1987, and 1988, James was a limited partner in a Pennsylvania limited partnership known as Mountain View Mall Associates (“Mountain View”). Elizabeth was never a partner in Mountain View. Nor did Elizabeth at any time own a joint interest in James’s partnership interest, whether by way of tenancy in common, joint tenancy, tenancy by the entirety, or otherwise. Elizabeth and James were domiciled in New York, which is not a community property state. See, e.g., Miller v. Miller, 22 N.Y.2d 12, 290 N.Y.S.2d 734, 237 N.E.2d 877, 879 (1968) (“The state of New York ... has not adopted a community property system.”) (quoting Hemingway v. McGehee (In re Estate of Crichton), 20 N.Y.2d 124, 281 N.Y.S.2d 811, 228 N.E.2d 799, 806 (1967)). Accordingly, Elizabeth had no ownership interest in James’s partnership interest. Elizabeth and James filed joint federal income tax returns. See I.R.C. § 6013(a). For each of the taxable years 1986, 1987 and 1988, their joint income tax returns reported and took into account James’s distributive share of the losses reported on Mountain View’s partnership returns for the same years. Absent an extension, the statute of limitations for the assessment of additional taxes attributable to the Calla-ways’ nonpartnership items for those taxable years expired on October 15, 1990, October 24, 1991 and April 15, 1992, respectively. See I.R.C. § 6501(a), (n)(2); cf. id. § 6229(a). For these taxable years, Mountain View timely filed its information return, pursuant to I.R.C. § 6031, on January 30, 1987, March 15, 1988 and February 28, 1989, respectively. Absent extension agreements, the statute of limitations for assessing any tax attributable to James’s distributive share of Mountain View partnership items would have expired on April 15 of 1990,1991 and 1992 for taxable years 1986, 1987 and 1989 respectively. See I.R.C. § 6229(a). However, on July 22, 1989, July 29, 1991 and November 26, 1991, the Mountain View TMP and the IRS executed agreements to extend indefinitely the statute of limitations on Mountain View’s tax returns. See I.R.C. § 6229(b). These agreements were binding on all Mountain View partners, but only with respect to their distributive share of Mountain View partnership items. See id. On December 8,1990, James died. Elizabeth was appointed the executrix of his estate. On February 5, 1991, the IRS mailed an NBAP to James with respect to Mountain View’s 1988 tax year. The IRS claims it mailed NBAPs to James with respect to Mountain View’s 1986 and 1987 taxable years. On December 23, 1991, acting on her own behalf and as the executrix of James’s estate, Elizabeth mailed three letters to the IRS Service Center in Brookhaven, New York. The first letter — of crucial importance in these proceedings — was a request on behalf of James’s estate for a prompt assessment, pursuant to I.R.C. § 6501(d), of the estate’s outstanding income tax liabilities for the taxable years 1986, 1987 and 1988. It is undisputed that this request for prompt assessment converted the partnership items of James’s estate to nonpartnership items, see I.R.C. § 6231(b)(1)(D), (c); Temp. Treas. Reg. § 301.6231(c)-8T, thereby requiring the IRS to determine deficiencies attributable to those items under the procedures of subchapter B, see I.R.C. § 6230(a) (2) (A) (ii), and shortening the limitations period for assessing taxes attributable to those items, see id. § 6229(f). Although the IRS now concedes that this letter was a valid request for prompt assessment, because it initially believed that the request was invalid, it failed to take account of the consequences of the conversion of the estate’s partnership items at the time the request was filed. The second letter included three checks in the amounts of $90,635, $48,846 and $8,439, clearly designated as deposits in the nature of cash bonds respecting joint tax liabilities of Elizabeth and the estate for 1986, 1987, and 1988 respectively. Having completed the partnership audit, on October 5, 1992, the IRS issued an FPAA notice to the Mountain View TMP determining adjustments to the partnership returns for the taxable years 1986, 1987, 1988, see I.R.C. § 6223(a)(2), and disallowing losses claimed in each of those years. The IRS mailed copies of these FPAAs to the Callaways. The Mountain View TMP did not contest this administrative adjustment. See I.R.C. § 6226(a). On March 3, 1993, a Mountain View notice partner other than the TMP timely filed a petition for readjustment contesting these FPAAs with the United States Court of Federal Claims. See I.R.C. § 6226(b). On July 6, 1995, the Court of Federal Claims dismissed this action pursuant to a stipulation for dismissal. That dismissal operated as the court’s decision that the adjustments proposed in the FPAA were correct. See I.R.C. § 6226(h). This decision became final 60 days later, on September 4,1995. Meanwhile, in August and September 1993 — no doubt recognizing that the request for prompt assessment was valid, with the effect that James’s distributive share of the partnership items had converted into nonpartnership items — the IRS entered “precautionary” assessments against the Callaways. These assessments, in the amounts of $77,384, $41,981 and $6,541, were for the additional taxes attributable to James’s distributive shares of the Mountain View losses that the FPAA had determined should be disallowed for 1986, 1987 and 1988, respectively. The IRS posted to the Callaways’ accounts the amounts remitted as cash bonds on December 23, 1991. Once the decision of the Court of Federal Claims became final, the IRS adjusted the Mountain View partnership return to reflect the adjustments of the FPAA. The IRS then assessed deficiencies against the individual Mountain View partners by computational adjustment. Accordingly, in July 1996, a computational adjustment was made to the Callaways’ accounts. The IRS abated the “precautionary” assessments entered in August and September 1993, and then entered identical assessments against the Callaways’ accounts. On August 5, 1996, the IRS issued notices of deficiency to the estate and Elizabeth determining various additions to tax, including penalties for delinquent filings of returns, negligence and valuation overstatements for the taxable years 1986, 1987 and 1988. Because these additions to tax were with respect to taxable years ending before August 5, 1997, they were treated as affected items requiring partner level determinations. Therefore, deficiency procedures under subchapter B were required and followed. See I.R.C. § 6230(a)(2)(A)(i) (as in effect for partnership taxable years ending before August 5, 1997). C. Proceedings Beloiu. On September 11, 1996, James’s estate and taxpayer Elizabeth (the “original petitioners”) timely filed a petition for redeter-mination, thereby invoking the jurisdiction of the Tax Court. See I.R.C. § 6214. On November 14, 1996, they moved to restrain collection of the underlying tax deficiencies attributable to the disallowance of James’s distributive shares of Mountain View’s losses. The Tax Court denied this motion on the ground that its jurisdiction was limited to a redetermination of additions to tax determined in the affected items notices of deficiency. See Callaway v. Commissioner, 75 T.C.M. (CCH) 1956, 1958, 1998 WL 102440 (1998). However, in its response papers to this motion, the Commissioner conceded that all assessments entered against James’s estate were untimely. The Commissioner conceded that the valid request for prompt assessment filed on December 23, 1991: (1) caused decedent’s Mountain View partnership items to convert immediately into nonpart-nership items, see I.R.C. § 6231(c)(2); Temp. Treas. Reg. § 301.6231(c)-8T; and (2) triggered an accelerated statute of limitations, under which the IRS had until June 23, 1993 to assess any deficiencies attributable to decedent’s distributive shares of Mountain View’s disallowed losses, see I.R.C. § 6501(d); but cf. id. § 6229(f) (providing that, on these facts, the limitations period expired on December 23, 1992). See Callaway, 75 T.C.M. (CCH) at 1958 & n. 3. On March 10, 1998, the Tax Court ruled on the original petitioners’ motion for summary judgment. As to James’s estate, the Tax Court held that because the request for prompt assessment had converted his partnership items into nonpartnership items, the determination of his tax liability for such items was excepted from TEFRA’s unified partnership audit and litigation procedures pursuant to section 6230(a)(2)(A)(ii). See Callaway, 75 T.C.M. (CCH) at 1960. The court therefore found the notices of deficiency for affected items invalid as to James’s estate, and dismissed the case against James’s estate for lack of jurisdiction. It denied as moot the estate’s summary judgment motion. See id. (relying on Crowell v. Commissioner, 102 T.C. 683, 691-92, 1994 WL 151303 (1994)). As to Elizabeth, relying in part on Dubin v. Commissioner, 99 T.C. 325, 334, 1992 WL 220119 (1992), the Tax Court held that her partnership items did not convert to nonpartnership items when decedent’s partnership items converted to nonpartnership items pursuant to Temp. Treas. Reg. § 301.6231(c)-8T. See Callaway, 75 T.C.M. (CCH) at 1961-62. The court therefore concluded that the notices of deficiency for affected items were valid insofar as they issued to Elizabeth and that they had been issued to her before her statute of limitations had run. See id. at 1963. After the order entered denying taxpayer summary judgment, the parties settled certain issues by agreement, pursuant to which a stipulated decision entered on November 17, 1998 preserving this issue for appeal. Final judgment was entered, and this appeal followed. DISCUSSION. We review the Tax Court’s legal conclusions de novo and its factual findings for clear error. See I.R.C. § 7482(a)(1) (“The United States Courts of Appeals ... shall ... review the decisions of the Tax Court ... in the same manner and to the same extent as decisions of the district courts in civil actions tried without a jury”); see also Texasgulf, Inc. and Subsidiaries v. Commissioner, 172 F.3d 209, 214 (2d Cir.1999). In particular, “[w]e owe no deference to the Tax Court’s statutory interpretations, its relationship to us being that of a district court to a court of appeals, not that of an administrative agency to a court of appeals.” Exacto Spring Corp. v. Commissioner, 196 F.3d 833, 838 (7th Cir.1999) (Posner, C.J.); cf. Baizer v. Commissioner, 204 F.3d 1231, 1233 (9th Cir.2000) (“Although a presumption exists that the tax court correctly applied the law, no special deference is given to the tax court’s decisions.”). The issue is whether, on the filing of the request for prompt assessment on behalf of James’ estate, the Mountain View tax items taken into account on the Callaways’ joint returns were converted from partnership items into nonpartnership items with respect to James alone or with respect to Elizabeth also. A. When James’s partnership items converted into nonpartnership items those same partnership items necessarily became nonpartnership items with respect to Elizabeth We conclude that because the only partnership items taken into account in the Callaways’ joint returns were James’s partnership items held by him as separate property, when all of his partnership items converted into nonpartnership items, all the Mountain View items reported in the joint returns necessarily became nonpartnership items with respect to Elizabeth also. 1. Before the request for prompt assessment. It is undisputed that James’s partnership interest was held as separate property. Only James was a partner as that term is defined in subtitle A. See I.R.C. § 761(b) (“For purposes of this subtitle, the term ‘partner’ means a member of a partnership.”); see also id. § 7701(a)(2). Only James owned an interest in his distributive share of the Mountain View tax items and only he was required to take those items into account, pursuant to Code section 702(a). That section requires that “[i]n determining his income tax, each partner shall take into account separately his distributive share of the partnership’s ... items of income, gain, loss, deduction, or credit-” I.R.C. § 702(a); see also Treas. Reg. § 1.702-l(a). Whether classified as “partnership items,” I.R.C. § 6231(a)(3), or “nonpartnership items,” id. § 6231(a)(4), there is no doubt that James’s distributive shares of the Mountain View tax items remained at all times his separate property. In particular, the Mountain View losses at issue in this case were his items. We turn now to the classification of those items as either “partnership items” or “nonpartnership items” for the purposes of subtitle F. Before the filing for prompt assessment, it is undisputed that James’s distributive shares of the various Mountain View tax items were classified as “partnership items.” The Code defines “partnership item” to mean: with respect to a partnership, any item required to be taken into account for the partnership’s taxable year under any provision of subtitle A to the extent regulations prescribed by the Secretary provide that, for purposes of [Subtitle F], such item is more appropriately determined at the partnership level than at the partner level. I.R.C. § 6231(a)(3). As prescribed by the Treasury regulations, the term includes “[t]he partnership aggregate and each partner’s share of ... [ijtems of income, gain[,] loss, deduction, or credit of the partnership.” Treas. Reg. § 301.6231(a)(3) — l(a)(l)(i) (emphases added). “[E]aeh partner’s share” refers to the distributive share of items that a partner must take into his account, pursuant to Code section 702(a). Here, it is undisputed that only James owned such a “share of’ the Mountain View partnership items. It is also evident from the regulation that tax items are classified as partnership items both with respect to the partnership (“the partnership aggregate”) and with respect to “each partner’s share of’ those items. In this manner, the regulatory scheme accommodates the concept of conversion: a “partner’s share of’ any partnership item may subsequently be treated as nonpartnership item, see I.R.C. § 6231(b)(1), even though such an item, in the aggregate, remains “more appropriately determined at the partnership level.” Treas. Reg. § 301.6231(a)(3)-l(a)(1)(i). In sum, as is undisputed, at the time they were originally taken into account on his tax returns, James’ distributive shares of the Mountain View tax items were both (1) his separate property, and (2) classified as “partnership items.” We next consider James’s distributive shares of Mountain View tax items with respect to Elizabeth. First, Elizabeth owned no interest in or “share of’ these items. Treas. Reg. § 301.6231(a)(3)-1(a)(1). The Mountain View tax items produced tax consequences for her solely through the Callaways’ decision to file joint returns. Had Elizabeth filed separately from James, Elizabeth would have taken no share of James’s distributive shares of Mountain View tax items into account in computing her tax liability for the years at issue. Cf. United States v. National Bank of Commerce, 472 U.S. 713, 722, 105 S.Ct. 2919, 86 L.Ed.2d 565 (1985) (federal tax law “ ‘creates no property rights but merely attaches consequences, federally defined, to rights created under state law’ ”) (quoting United States v. Bess, 357 U.S. 51, 55, 78 S.Ct. 1054, 2 L.Ed.2d 1135 (1958)). The filing of joint tax returns does not alter property rights between husband and wife. See Zeeman v. United States, 395 F.2d 861, 865 (2d Cir.1968). In particular, the filing of a joint return does not have the effect of converting the income of one spouse into the income of another. See, e.g., McClelland v. Massinga, 786 F.2d 1205, 1210 (4th Cir.1986) (“[T]he mere filing of a joint tax return by a husband and wife does not render the property taxed or the tax paid joint property.”). The Callaways’ decision to file jointly, see I.R.C. § 6013(a), had no effect on James’s separate ownership of his Mountain View items. However, because the Callaways filed joint returns, their tax was computed on their aggregate income. See I.R.C. § 6013(d)(3); Treas. Reg. 1.6013-4(b) (“Although there are two taxpayers on a joint return, there is only one taxable income.”). Liability for that tax was joint and several. See I.R.C. § 6013(d)(3). James took his distributive shares of Mountain View tax items into joint account in computing the Callaways’ aggregate income. See I.R.C. § 702(a). Therefore, because Elizabeth’s “income tax liability ... [was] determined ... in part by taking into account ... partnership items of the partnership,” she was a “partner” “[f]or purposes of’ subchapter C. I.R.C. § 6231(a)(2)(B); Temp. Treas. Reg. § 301.6231(a)(2)-lT(a). However, Elizabeth’s status as a partner “[f]or purposes of [subchapter C]” did not make her a “member of the partnership,” see I.R.C. § 761(b); nor did it transfer to her a share of James’s distributive share of the Mountain View items; nor did it effect any change in the classification of those items as either “partnership items” or “nonpart-nership items.” Her status as a partner simply gave her certain notice and participation rights in any partnership proceedings under TEFRA — when those procedures applied. See Temp. Treas. Reg. § 301.6231(a)(2)-lT(a). Most importantly, Elizabeth’s status as a partner arises only by operation of sub-chapter C and only “for purposes of [sub-chapter C].” I.R.C. § 6231(a). It is a consequence of the application of that subchapter. The issue whether subchap-ter B or subchapter C applied to the disputed assessments — -that is, the issue in this case — does not turn on Elizabeth’s status as a partner under TEFRA. It turns on the classification, for the purposes of subtitle F, of the items to which the tax deficiencies were attributable. If those items were classified as partnership items, subchapter C would apply. See I.R.C. §§ 6221, 6211(c), 6216(4). If those items were classified as nonpartnership items, then subchapter C could not apply. See, e.g., I.R.C. § 6226(f); Maxwell, 87 T.C. at 788. The Commissioner’s argument accepted by the Tax Court assumes its own conclusion. See Callaway, 75 T.C.M. (CCH) at 1960 (“[Notwithstanding the conversion of decedent’s partnership items to nonpartnership items ... Mrs. Callaway was at all times treated as a Mountain View partner who was fully entitled to participate in partnership level proceedings.”). Unless subchapter C still applies, the fact that Elizabeth Callaway is a “partner” “[f]or purposes of [that] subchapter,” I.R.C. § 6231(a)(2)(B), is irrelevant. We conclude that immediately before the request for prompt assessment: (1) all James’s distributive shares of the Mountain View tax items (including the disputed losses) as taken into account in the Calla-ways’ joint returns were James’s separate property, see I.R.C. § 702(a); 6013(a); (2) all of those items were classified as partnership items; see I.R.C. § 6231(a)(3); Treas. Reg. § 301.6231(a)(3)-l(a)(l)(i); and (3) any adjustment to the tax treatment of those partnership items had to be determined under subchapter C, see I.R.C. § 6221; Temp. Treas. Reg. § 301.6221-lT(a). For so long as James’s distributive shares of the Mountain View tax items, as taken into account in their joint returns, were characterized as “partnership items,” they were necessarily partnership items with respect to Elizabeth. However, as we conclude below, when James’s distributive share of the Mountain View tax items converted into nonpartnership items, they necessarily converted into nonpartnership items with respect to Elizabeth. 2. The results of the conversion. A “ ‘nonpartnership item’ means an item which is (or is treated as) not a partnership item.” I.R.C. § 6231(a)(4). It is the parenthetical that is important. Pursuant to section 6231(c)(2), the Secretary has the authority to provide by regulation that certain items otherwise treated as partnership items are to be treated as nonpartnership items. It is not disputed that an individual “partner’s share of’ such items, Treas. Reg. § 301.6231(a)(3)-l(a)(l), can be treated as “not a partnership item.” I.R.C. § 6231(a)(4). The purpose of this is clear. By severing the partner in question from the partnership level proceedings, the Secretary seeks to meet what he has identified as “special enforcement considerations.” I.R.C. § 6231(c)(1)(E). The conversion of the partnership items into nonpartnership items removes them from subchapter C proceedings and subjects them to the procedures of subchapter B. See I.R.C. § 6230(a)(2)(A)(ii). Because the tax treatment of his items is no longer subject to the subchapter C proceedings, a partner no longer has an interest in the outcome of those proceedings. By statute he is no longer a party to a judicial proceeding under section 6226 and loses his rights to participate in such an action. See I.R.C. §§ 6226(d), 6228(a)(4)(B); cf. Tax Ct. Rules 245(b), 247(a) reprinted following 26 U.S.C.A. § 7453. In the case of a partner filing in bankruptcy, the “special enforcement consideration” is the need to prevent the automatic stay imposed by the bankruptcy code, see 11 U.S.C. § 362, from staying the TEFRA proceedings against the other partners. See Computer Programs Lambda, Ltd. v. Commissioner, 89 T.C. 198, 204, 1987 WL 42563 (1987). In the case of a request for prompt assessment, the consideration is facilitating the timely wrapping up of the partner’s estate, which requires the final determination of his income tax liability. And that is the relevant concern here. Pursuant to Temp. Treas. Reg. § 301.6231(c)-8T, when his estate filed for prompt assessment, see I.R.C. § 6501(d), the distributive shares of James’s Mountain View tax items were converted from partnership items into nonpartnership items. See I.R.C. § 6231(b)(1)(D), (c)(1)(E). In relevant part the prompt assessment regulation states that the “partnership items of ... a partner [on whose behalf a request for prompt assessment of tax under section 6501(d) is filed] ... shall be treated as nonpartnership items ...” Temp. Treas. Reg. § 301.6231(c)-8T. Applying this instruction to the facts before us, James’s distributive shares of the Mountain View tax items for the years in question converted from partnership items into nonpartnership items. Because the only Mountain View tax items taken into account on the Callaways’ joint returns were James Callaway’s items, held as separate property, it follows that all such items converted from partnership items into nonpartnership items. In our view, these items necessarily became nonpart-nership items with respect to Elizabeth. The items had been partnership items with respect to her, only because James was required to take them into account and he had taken them into account in a joint return filed with Elizabeth. As a consequence, tax deficiencies assessed against either James or Elizabeth attributable to these items were to be determined by following the notice of deficiency procedures of subchapter B. See I.R.C. § 6230(a)(2)(A)(ii). Our interpretation of the effect of the prompt assessment regulation is not only consistent with its text — which instructs that James’s distributive share of the Mountain View tax items converted from partnership items into nonpartnership items — but also comports with the overall structure and purpose of the TEFRA provisions. The position adopted by the Tax Court does not. The position of the Tax Court below creates the anomaly that a single share of tax items taken into account on a single return will be treated simultaneously as a “partnership item” and a “nonpartnership item.” Under this reading, James’s shares of disputed Mountain View losses, as reported in the Callaways’ joint returns, would be treated as nonpartnership items with respect to James and partnership items with respect to Elizabeth. Consequently, the procedures of subchapter B would apply to assessments against James, while the procedures of subchapter C would apply to assessments against Elizabeth, notwithstanding that any deficiencies were attributable to the identical items. This result contradicts the language and structure of the Code, which make quite clear that partnership item and nonpart-nership item are mutually exclusive classifications, see I.R.C. § 6231(a)(4) (“ ‘non-partnership item’ means an item which is ... not a partnership item”), that trigger mutually exclusive audit and assessment procedures under subchapter C and sub-chapter B respectively. See I.R.C. §§ 6216(4), 6221, 6230(a)(2)(A)(ii). The legislative history is clear that this strict dichotomy provided the fundamental structure of the TEFRA provisions. See H.R. Conf. Rep. 97-760, at 611. And the Tax Court itself has consistently noted this foundational structure. See, e.g., Maxwell, 87 T.C. at 788 (“It is evident both from the statutory pattern and from the Conference Report that Congress intended administrative and judicial resolution of disputes involving partnership items to be separate from and independent of disputes involving non-partnership items.”) (emphasis added). In the Callaways’ ease, there is only one separate interest in the disputed Mountain View losses, taken into account in one tax return. Compare Dubin, 99 T.C. at 326 (wife had half-share in husband’s distributive shares and therefore owned her own share of items); Gillilan v. Commissioner, 66 T.C.M. (CCH) 398, 1993 WL 311552 (1993) (same fact pattern). The position that the Commissioner advocates would, in effect, allow identical items to be audited simultaneously in both subchapter B and subchapter C. The structure and language of the Code do not support such a reading. Both the Tax Court and the Commissioner on appeal place grqat weight on the fact that Elizabeth was a “partner” for the purposes of subchapter C. See I.R.C. § 6281(a)(2)(B); Temp. Treas. Reg. § 301.6231(a)(2)~lT(a). But that argument proves too much. The same, of course, was true of James. Section 6231(a)(2)(A) provides, “For purposes of [subchapter C] ... [t]he term ‘partner’ means a partner in the partnership.” For the tax years in dispute, it is certain that James remained a partner in the Mountain View partnership, notwithstanding that his estate requested prompt assessment. Yet it is equally certain that tax deficiencies attributable to his distributive share of the Mountain View tax items ceased to be determined under subchapter C when those partnership items converted into nonpartnership items. See I.R.C. § 6230(a)(2)(A)(ii). Because he no longer had an interest in the outcome of any judicial proceeding under subchapter C, he was no longer bound as party to, nor was he entitled to participate in, those proceedings. See I.R.C. §§ 6226(d), 6228(a)(4)(B); cf. Tax Ct. Rules 245(b), 247(a) reprinted following 26 U.S.C.A. § 7453. If subchap-ter C no longer applied to assessments against James, notwithstanding his status as a partner, once his distributive share of the Mountain View losses converted into nonpartnership items, there is no reason why deficiencies attributable to the same tax items should be assessed against Elizabeth under subchapter C solely by reason of her status as a partner under that sub-chapter. It is the classification of the tax items taken into account in the Callaways’ joint return as either partnership items or nonpartnership items that determines the application of subehapter C — not the status of the taxpayer as a “partner.” Because the only partnership items taken into account on the Callaways’ joint return were James’s partnership items, and because it is undisputed that all of his partnership items converted into nonpart-nership items, we conclude that all of the partnership items reported on the Calla-ways’ returns converted into nonpartnership items. We therefore conclude that after December 23, 1991, to determine deficiencies attributable to James’s distributive share of Mountain View tax items, as taken into account in the Callaways’ joint returns, and to assess those deficiencies against either spouse, the Commissioner was required to proceed under subchapter B. Of course, the conversion of James’ partnership items into nonpartnership items and the corresponding application of sub-chapter B effected a purely procedural change. See Phillips v. Commissioner, 106 T.C. 176, 183, 1995 WL 814744 (1995). It did not alter the Callaways’ substantive tax obligations. It did not prevent the IRS from determining deficiencies under subchapter B nor from assessing them against either spouse. Indeed, as we discuss below, it would not have prevented the assessment of deficiencies against Elizabeth after the expiration of James’s section 6501(d) limitations period had a longer limitations period remained open with respect to assessments against her and had the IRS taken timely action within that period. Accord Garfinkel v. Commissioner, 67 T.C. 1028, 1032, 1977 WL 3618 (1977); Rev. Rul. 72-338, 1972-2 C.B. 641. Nor did it prevent the IRS from utilizing information from the TEFRA audit in determining the Callaways’ deficiencies. See Phillips, 106 T.C. at 178, 183 (where partner’s distributive share converted into non-partnership items determination of deficiency under subchapter B may rely on factual analysis undertaken in TEFRA audit). B. The statute of limitations against assessments attributable to James Cal-laiuay’s distributive share of the Mountain View items ran on December 23, 1992. We disagree with the Commissioner’s contention and the Tax Court’s conclusion that by operation of section 6501(d) the statute of limitations on assessment of taxes attributable to the Mountain View losses taken into account on the Callaways’ joint return did not expire until June 23, 1993. That analysis ignores the effect of section 6229(f) and misconstrues section 6501(d) and the regulations promulgated thereunder. We conclude that the limitations period expired on December 23, 1992. On filing of a valid request for prompt assessment, the limitations period runs for a maximum of eighteen months on any return filed prior to the request, “but not after the expiration of 3 years after the return was filed.” I.R.C. § 6501(d). The regulations make clear that “the request does not extend the time within which an assessment may be made.” Treas. Reg. § 301.6501(d) — 1(b) (emphasis added). Here, immediately before the filing of the section 6501(d) request for prompt assessment, only two limitations periods remained open with respect to the Calla-ways’ tax returns. First, the ordinary limitations period on the Callaways’ 1988 joint return remained open until April 15, 1992 — the date three years after that return was filed. See I.R.C. § 6501(a). Second, the limitations period remained open against assessments attributable to James Callaway’s distributive share of the Mountain View partnership items, by operation of the agreements executed by the TMP and the IRS. Those agreements bound both James and Elizabeth. See I.R.C. § 6229(b)(1)(B). However, these agreements controlled only the limitations periods for assessing taxes attributable to partnership items. See I.R.C. § 6229(a), (b). Therefore, when James Callaway’s distributive share of the Mountain View items, as taken into account in the Calla-ways’ joint returns, converted from partnership items to nonpartnership items, the TMP’s agreements ceased to control. See id. It does not follow, however, as the IRS has assumed, that by operation of section 6501(d) an eighteen month limitations period began to run on the conversion of the partnership items. Section 6501(d) sets only a maximum time for assessment. See Treas. Reg. § 301.6501(d)-l(b). To prevent further assessments from being immediately time-barred on conversion, the Code provides that when partnership items are converted into nonpartnership items, “the period for assessing any tax imposed by subtitle A which is attributable to such items ... shall not expire before the date which is 1 year after the date on which the items become nonpartnership items.” I.R.C. § 6229(f)(1). It is section 6229(f)(1), rather than section 6501(d), that provides the post-conversion limitations period in this case. This limitations period also applies to additions to tax and penalties that arise with respect to any tax imposed under subtitle A. See I.R.C. § 6229(g). We conclude that the period for assessing tax attributable to the distributive share of Mountain View losses taken into account on the Callaway’s 1986, 1987 and 1988 tax returns expired on December 23, 1992. As a consequence, we hold that the “precautionary” assessments entered against the Callaways in July and August 1993, the computational adjustments entered in July 1996 and the affected items notice of deficiencies issued in August 1996 were all time-barred. The Commissioner contends that it is well-settled law that spouses with joint and several liability may be subject to different limitations periods. See, e.g., Tallal v. Commissioner, 77 T.C. 1291, 1295-96, 1981 WL 11311 (1981) (holding where spouses filed joint return, and husband signed extension of statute of limitations and wife did not, IRS was barred from assessing tax against wife but not husband); Garfinkel, 67 T.C. at 1032 (period of limitation on assessment against the surviving party to a joint return is not affected where the decedent’s representative requests prompt assessment); Rev. Rul. 72-338 (same). Undoubtedly this is true, but it is irrelevant on these facts. The limitations period on assessments against Elizabeth did not expire because the limitations period on assessments against James expired. Their limitations periods expired simultaneously because as of December 23, 1991 — when James’s distributive share of the Mountain View partnership items converted into nonpartnership items — the limitations periods with respect to assessments against either spouse attributable to those items remained open for a minimum of one year, see I.R.C. § 6229(f), and no longer period remained open with respect to either spouse. Had a longer period been open with regard to Elizabeth, but not James, and had the IRS acted timely to assess Elizabeth within that period, she would have been liable for deficiencies attributable to the Mountain View losses taken into account on their joint tax returns, notwithstanding the running of the statute as to James. Our holding does not contradict the principle that spouses sharing joint liability may be subject to asymmetric limitations periods. That principle simply has no application on these facts. The Commissioner’s argument that the TEFRA proceedings tolled any statute of limitations on assessments against Elizabeth is misconceived. The filing of an FPAA tolls the limitations period on assessments attributable to partnership items for so long as administrative and judicial proceedings are pending and for one year after the adjustments become final. See I.R.C. § 6229(d). But again these provisions only apply to assessments attributable to partnership items. In this case the FPAA was not issued until October 6, 1992 — over nine months after the partnership items reported on the Calla-ways’ returns had been converted into nonpartnership items, on December 23, 1991. The FPAA was not finalized until September 4, 1995. See Temp. Treas. Reg. § 301.6231(c)-3T (conversion under Temp. Treas. Reg. § 301.6231(e)-8T(a) effective anytime before FPAA is finalized). Further, neither James nor Elizabeth was bound as a party to the section 6226 judicial proceeding filed on March 3, 1993, because — -as a consequence of the conversion of James’s distributive share of the partnership items into nonpartnership items — neither spouse retained an interest in the outcome of that proceeding. See I.R.C. § 6226(d); cf. Tax Ct. Rules 245(b), 247(a) reprinted following 26 U.S.C.A. § 7453. In any event, that proceeding was brought after the section 6229(f) limitations period had run on December 23, 1992. Therefore, there is no merit to the Commissioner’s claim that the limitations period remained open against Elizabeth because of pending subchapter C proceedings against Mountain View. We conclude that (1) as of December 23, 1991, when James Callaway’s estate requested prompt assessment, all of James’s Mountain View losses taken into account on the Callaways’ joint returns for the taxable years in issue were converted from partnership items to nonpartnership items; (2) therefore, assessments of deficiencies attributable to those losses were subject to the deficiency procedures of subchapter B, not the TEFRA procedures of subchapter C; regardless whether the deficiencies were assessed against James or Elizabeth; and (3) the period of limitations for assessments of tax attributable to those losses against either Callaway spouse expired on December 23, 1992. Because both the 1993 “precautionary” assessments and the 1996 computational adjustments occurred after that date, and because neither complied with the deficiency procedures of subchapter B, they were both time-barred and procedurally invalid. It follows that the subsequent determination of additions to tax and penalties was also invalid. C. The pertinence of Dubin v. Commissioner. Both the Tax Court below and the IRS rely on Dubin v. Commissioner, 99 T.C. 325, 1992 WL 220119 (1992), for the proposition that the conversion of one spouse’s partnership items does not convert the partnership items of the other spouse. Assuming it was correctly decided, Dubin is distinguishable on its facts. We decline to extend it in the manner advocated by the Commissioner. Such an extension contradicts the basic structure of Chapter 63. Furthermore, even on its own facts, we doubt that Dubin was correctly decided. At issue in Dubin was the effect of a regulation, also promulgated under the authority delegated to the Secretary by I.R.C. § 6231(c)(2), providing that the partnership items of a partner who files for bankruptcy will convert to nonpartnership items. See Temp. Treas. Reg. § 301.6231(c)-7T(a). Dubin concerned a joint-filing husband and wife. See Dubin, 99 T.C. at 326. Alan Dubin was a member of three partnerships. By operation of California’s community property law, Alan and his wife Jewell owned joint interests in these partnerships. See id. at 326-27, 331. Because of this joint property interest, Jewell was treated as a partner for the purposes of subchapter C. See I.R.C. § 6231(a)(2)(B); Temp. Treas. Reg. § 301.6231(a)(12)-lT(a). Reasoning that the TEFRA regulations treated Jewell as a separate partner, and because only the partnership items of the “partner named as a debtor in bankruptcy” are “treated as nonpartnership items,” the Tax Court held that the conversion of Alan’s partnership items by reason of his status as a debtor in bankruptcy did not convert Jewell’s partnership items. Dubin, 99 T.C. at 334. In this case, the Tax Court reasoned that, just as the bankruptcy provision in Dubin converted only the partnership items of the spouse named in bankruptcy, the prompt assessment regulation converts only the partnership items of the decedent on whose behalf the section 6501(d) request is filed. See Callaway, 75 T.C.M. (CCH) at 1961. Unlike Jewell Dubin, however, Elizabeth Callaway held no property interest in James’s distributive share of the partnership items. The Tax Court below,noted this distinction, but dismissed it in a con-clusory manner: Although the Dubin case involved the status of a taxpayer holding a joint partnership interest with her husband, whereas the instant case concerns the status of a taxpayer who filed a joint return with her husband, who held a separate partnership interest, we see no meaningful distinction between the controlling statutory and regulatory provisions. Callaway, 75 T.C.M. (CCH) at 1961. We disagree. The distinction between the arrangement of the Callaways’ and the Dubins’ property interests is significant. Because Jewell Dubin owned a joint intere