- 31 -
investment, he did not know the name of the recycling partnership
in which EI invested, and he knew "nothing" about the recycling
equipment. In fact, petitioner testified that he did not learn
of EI's investment in recycling until 3 months prior to trial of
his case.
We conclude that petitioner was negligent in claiming the
deductions and credits with respect to EI's investment in
Clearwater on his 1981 Federal income tax return. We hold, upon
consideration of the entire record, that petitioner is liable for
the negligence additions to tax under the provisions of section
6653(a)(1) and (2) for 1981.
Issue 5. Sec. 6659 Valuation Overstatement
Respondent determined that petitioner was liable for the
addition to tax for valuation overstatement under section 6659 on
the underpayment of his 1981 Federal income tax attributable to
the business energy credit claimed with respect to EI and
Clearwater. Petitioner has the burden of proving respondent's
determination of this addition to tax erroneous. Rule 142(a);
Rybak v. Commissioner, 91 T.C. 524, 566 (1988).
The underlying facts of this case with respect to this issue
are substantially the same as those in Fine v. Commissioner, T.C.
Memo. 1995-222. In addition, petitioner's arguments with respect
to this issue are identical to the arguments made in the Fine
case. For reasons set forth in the Fine opinion, we hold that
Page: Previous 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011