Stuart A. and Harriet J. Gollin, et al. - Page 6

                                        - 6 -- 6 -                                        
               4.  With respect to the issue of the addition to the                   
               tax under I.R.C. �6659, Petitioners do not intend to                   
               contest the value of the Sentinel Recycler or the                      
               existence of a valuation overstatement on the                          
               Petitioners' returns; however, Petitioners reserve                     
               their right to argue that the underpayment in tax is                   
               not attributable to a valuation overstatement within                   
               the meaning of I.R.C. �6659(a)(1), and that the                        
               Secretary should have waived the addition to tax                       
               pursuant to the provisions of I.R.C. �6659(e).                         
          In their stipulation of settled issues, petitioners in docket No.           
          21847-90 (the Fredericks) conceded:  (1) The section 6621(c)                
          interest; (2) the tax benefits claimed on their tax returns from            
          their participation in the Plastics Recycling Program; and (3)              
          the section 6659 addition to tax on the portion of their                    
          underpayment attributable to the disallowance of investment tax             
          and business energy credits claimed as a result of their                    
          participation in the Plastics Recycling Program.  Respondent                
          conceded the addition to tax under section 6661 with respect to             
          the Fredericks' participation in the Plastics Recycling Program.            
               Long after the trials of these cases, petitioners in docket            
          Nos. 16922-90 (the Gollins) and 19612-90 (the Fishbachs) each               
          filed a Motion For Leave To File Motion For Decision Ordering               
          Relief From the Negligence Penalty and the Penalty Rate of                  
          Interest and To File Supporting Memorandum of Law under Rule 50.            
          These motions were filed with attached exhibits on October 30,              
          1995, and on October 23, 1995, respectively.  On those same                 
          dates, petitioners Gollin and Fishbach each also lodged with the            
          Court a motion for decision ordering relief from the additions to           





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011