Anthony J. and Claire L. Pace - Page 24

                                       - 24 -                                         
          opinion 959 F.2d 234 (6th Cir. 1992), affd. sub nom. Pasternak v.           
          Commissioner, 990 F.2d 893 (6th Cir. 1993).                                 
               We held in Provizer v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1992-177,              
          that each Sentinel EPE recycler had a fair market value not in              
          excess of $50,000.  Our finding in the Provizer case that the               
          Sentinel EPE recyclers had been overvalued was integral to and              
          inseparable from our finding of a lack of economic substance.               
          Petitioners stipulated substantially the same facts regarding the           
          Hyannis transaction as we found with respect to the Clearwater              
          transaction described in the Provizer case, and that the                    
          recyclers each had a fair market value not in excess of $50,000.            
          Given those stipulations, and the fact that the records here                
          plainly show that the overvaluation of the recyclers was the                
          primary reason for the respective disallowances of the claimed              
          tax benefits, and the fact that no argument was made and no                 
          evidence was presented to the Court to prove that the                       
          disallowances and concessions of the investment tax credits                 
          related to anything other than a valuation overstatement, we                
          conclude that the respective deficiencies caused by the                     
          disallowances of the claimed tax benefits were attributable to              
          overvaluation of the Sentinel EPE recyclers.                                
               Finally, we consider the express arguments of petitioners as           
          to waiver of the section 6659 additions to tax.  On brief,                  
          petitioners each contested imposition of the section 6659                   
          addition to tax on the grounds that respondent erroneously failed           




Page:  Previous  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011