- 27 -
the Fine case. For reasons set forth in the Fine opinion, we
hold that petitioners are liable for the section 6659 addition to
tax at the rate of 30 percent of the underpayment of tax
attributable to the disallowed credits claimed with respect to EI
and Clearwater.9
Petitioners contend that respondent abused her discretion in
failing to waive the section 6659 additions to tax pursuant to
section 6659(e). Section 6659(e) authorizes the Commissioner to
waive all or part of the addition to tax for a valuation
overstatement if the taxpayer establishes that there was a
reasonable basis for the valuation or adjusted basis claimed on
the return and that such claim was made in good faith. The
Commissioner's refusal to waive a section 6659 addition to tax is
reviewable by this Court for abuse of discretion.
On these records, we hold that respondent did not abuse her
discretion in failing to waive the section 6659 additions to tax.
The records in these cases do not show that petitioners'
valuations were reasonable. In addition, the records fail to
indicate that petitioners ever requested a waiver from respondent
pursuant to section 6659(e) until briefing after trial. We are
9
Sec. 6659 applies to returns filed after Dec. 31, 1981.
Although petitioner Sorey filed returns for 1978 and 1979 prior
to Dec. 31, 1981, he is liable for the additions to tax under
sec. 6659 for 1978 and 1979 because the underpayments of tax for
those years are attributable to the carryback of unused tax
credits claimed on his 1981 return. See Nielsen v. Commissioner,
87 T.C. 779 (1986).
Page: Previous 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011