abstract, underlies the determination of items such as the amount, timing, and characterization of items of income, credit, gain, loss, deduction. Appellant's Br. 43-45. The government, however, fails to explain why partner identity would be necessary to determine those items on the facts of this particular case. As explained above, whether a particular item qualifies as a partnership item turns on the specific facts of the case. The government's abstract argument, therefore, is insufficient. 8 . The IRS did cite I.R.C. § 465 in the FPAAs and assert that the transactions did not increase the partners’ amounts at risk. While the Court of Federal Claims placed substantive significance on the citation to I.R. 195716, at *---, 1990 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 695, at *47-49 (Tax Ct. Dec. 10, 1990) (<HOLDING>); and Weiner v. United States, 389 F.3d 152,
holding that spouse could not claim exemption in property that was only property of other spouses estate holding that the debtor could retain exempt property because it was not property of the estate holding that plaintiffs may have a property interest in real property holding that overvaluation penalty did not apply where the taxpayers conceded other grounds of adjustment in the notice of deficiency including that they lacked a profit objective that the property at issue was not qualifying property and that the property was not placed in service holding that the penalty was inapplicable when the deficiency was not due to overstated basis but to a failure to place property into service