- 16 -
In reaching this conclusion, we rely heavily upon the
overvaluation of the Sentinel EPE recyclers. Accordingly,
respondent is sustained on this issue with respect to the
underlying deficiency for 1981 in docket No. 21243-85 and the
underlying deficiencies for 1978 and 1979 in docket No. 7908-89.
With respect to the underlying deficiency for 1981 in docket No.
7908-89, we sustain respondent's disallowance of the deductions
and credits claimed with respect to EI's investment in
Clearwater.7 We also note that each petitioner has stated his
concession of this issue on brief. The record plainly supports
respondent's determinations regardless of such concessions. For
a detailed discussion of the facts and the applicable law, see
Provizer v. Commissioner, supra.
Issue 3. Sec. 6653(a) Negligence
In the notice of deficiency in docket No. 7908-89,
respondent determined that Sorey was liable for the negligence
additions to tax under section 6653(a)(1) and (2) for 1981.
Sorey has the burden of proving that respondent's determination
is erroneous. Rule 142(a); Luman v. Commissioner, 79 T.C. 846,
860-861 (1982). In addition, in her first amendments to answer,
7
Respondent determined that Sorey was not entitled to any
deduction on his 1981 Federal income tax return with respect to
his investment in EI, however the notice of deficiency states
that only items "reported with respect to your [Sorey's]
equipment leasing activities for the year 1981 in Efron
Investors, Ltd. Partnership are disallowed." We sustain only
respondent's disallowance of the losses and credits claimed with
respect to EI's investment in Clearwater.
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011