- 34 -
underpayment was not attributable to a valuation overstatement
because property was not placed in service during the years in
issue. In McCrary, we found the taxpayers were not liable for
the section 6659 addition to tax when, prior to the trial of the
case, the taxpayers conceded that they were not entitled to the
investment tax credit because the agreement in question was a
license and not a lease. In both cases the underpayment was
attributable to something other than a valuation overstatement.
This Court has held that concession of the investment tax
credit in and of itself does not relieve taxpayers of liability
for the section 6659 addition to tax. Dybsand v. Commissioner,
T.C. Memo. 1994-56; Chiechi v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1993-630.
Instead, what is significant is the ground upon which the
investment tax credit is disallowed or conceded. Chiechi v.
Commissioner, supra. Even in situations in which there are
arguably two grounds to support a deficiency and one supports a
section 6659 addition to tax and the other does not, the taxpayer
may still be liable for the addition to tax. Gainer v.
Commissioner, 893 F.2d 225, 228 (9th Cir. 1990), affg. T.C. Memo.
1988-416; Irom v. Commissioner, 866 F.2d 545, 547 (2d Cir. 1989),
vacating in part and remanding T.C. Memo. 1988-211; Harness v.
Commissioner, supra.
No argument was made and no evidence was presented to the
Court in the present cases to prove that disallowance and
concession of the tax benefits related to anything other than a
Page: Previous 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011