Allan J. and Brenda Becker - Page 20

                                       - 20 -                                         
          favorable results for taxpayers.7                                           
               In Provizer v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1992-177, a test               
          case for the Plastics Recycling group of cases, this Court (1)              
          found that each Sentinel EPE recycler had a fair market value not           
          in excess of $50,000, (2) held that the transaction, which is               
          almost identical to the Partnership transactions in this case,              
          was a sham because it lacked economic substance and a business              
          purpose, (3) upheld the section 6659 addition to tax for                    
          valuation overstatement since the underpayment of taxes was                 
          directly related to the overstatement of the value of the                   
          Sentinel EPE recyclers, and (4) held that losses and credits                
          claimed with respect to Clearwater were attributable to tax-                
          motivated transactions within the meaning of section 6621(c).  In           
          reaching the conclusion that the transaction lacked economic                
          substance and a business purpose, this Court relied heavily upon            


          7    In Zidanich v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1995-382, we held              
          the taxpayers liable for the sec. 6659 addition to tax, but not             
          liable for the negligence additions to tax under sec. 6653(a).              
          As indicated in our opinion, the Zidanich case, and the Steinberg           
          case consolidated with it for opinion, involved exceptional                 
          circumstances.                                                              
               In Estate of Satin v. Commissioner, supra, and Fisher v.               
          Commissioner, supra, after the decision in Provizer v.                      
          Commissioner, supra, the taxpayers were allowed to elect to                 
          accept a beneficial settlement because of exceptional                       
          circumstances.  In Farrell v. Commissioner, supra, we rejected              
          taxpayers' claim to a similar belated settlement arrangement                
          since the circumstances were different and taxpayers previously             
          had rejected settlement and elected to litigate the case.  See              
          also Jaroff v. Commissioner, supra; Gollin v. Commissioner,                 
          supra; Grelsamer v. Commissioner, supra; Zenkel v. Commissioner,            
          supra; Baratelli v. Commissioner, supra.                                    




Page:  Previous  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011