- 52 -
for petitioners obtained copies of these reports and urge that
they support the reasonableness of the values reported on
petitioners' returns. Not surprisingly, counsel in these cases
did not call Carmagnola to testify, but preferred instead to rely
solely upon his preliminary ill-founded valuation estimates.
Carmagnola has not been called to testify in any of the Plastics
Recycling cases before us. The Carmagnola reports were a part of
the record considered by this Court and reviewed by the Court of
Appeals for the Sixth Circuit in the Provizer case, where we held
the taxpayers negligent. Consistent therewith, we find in these
cases, as we have found previously, that the reports prepared by
Carmagnola are unreliable and of no consequence. Petitioners are
not relieved of the negligence additions to tax based on the
preliminary reports prepared by Carmagnola.
Petitioners cite a number of cases in support of their
positions, but primarily rely on Durrett v. Commissioner, 71 F.3d
515 (5th Cir. 1996), affg. in part and revg. in part T.C. Memo.
1994-179; Chamberlain v. Commissioner, 6 F.3d 729 (5th Cir.
1995), affg. in part and revg. in part T.C. Memo. 1994-228;
Mollen v. United States, 72 AFTR 2d 93-6443, 93-2 USTC par.
50,585 (D. Ariz. 1993); Reile v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1992-
488; and Davis v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1989-607.
Page: Previous 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011