Leon and Belle Atkind - Page 22

                                                - 22 -                                                  
            was presented to the Court to prove that disallowance and                                   
            concession of the claimed tax benefits related to anything other                            
            than a valuation overstatement, we conclude that the deficiency                             
            caused by the disallowance of the claimed tax benefits was                                  
            attributable to the overvaluation of the Sentinel EPE recyclers.                            
                  Finally, we consider petitioners' express argument as to                              
            waiver of the addition to tax.  On brief, petitioners contested                             
            imposition of the section 6659 addition to tax on the grounds                               
            that respondent erroneously failed to waive the penalty.  Section                           
            6659(e) authorizes respondent to waive all or part of the                                   
            addition to tax for valuation overstatements if taxpayers                                   
            establish that there was a reasonable basis for the adjusted                                
            bases or valuations claimed on the returns and that such claims                             
            were made in good faith.  Respondent's refusal to waive a section                           
            6659 addition to tax is reviewable by this Court for abuse of                               
            discretion.  Krause v. Commissioner, 99 T.C. at 179.                                        
                  Petitioner arrived at the claimed valuation by virtue of his                          
            purported reliance on Miller and Roberts, in addition to the                                
            representations and evaluations contained in the offering                                   
            memorandum.  He contends that such reliance was reasonable and,                             
            therefore, respondent should have waived the section 6659                                   
            addition to tax.                                                                            
                  We have found that petitioner's purported reliance on                                 
            Miller, Roberts, and the offering memorandum was not reasonable.                            
            Miller was corporate counsel to PI, and Roberts was a promoter of                           
            Hyannis.  See Vojticek v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1995-144,                                

Page:  Previous  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011