Stuart A. and Harriet J. Gollin, et al. - Page 80

                                       - 80 -- 80 -                                        
          v. Commissioner, 82 T.C. 989 (1984); Haught v. Commissioner, T.C.           
          Memo. 1993-58.                                                              
               We note initially that petitioners did not request                     
          respondent to waive the section 6659 additions to tax until well            
          after the trials of these cases.  The Gollins made their request            
          more than 6 months after the trial of their case, and the                   
          Fishbachs made their request more than 4 months after the trial             
          of their case.  We are reluctant to find that respondent abused             
          her discretion in these cases when she was not timely requested             
          to exercise it and there is no direct evidence of any abuse of              
          administrative discretion.  Haught v. Commissioner, supra; cf.              
          Wynn v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1995-609; Klieger v.                       
          Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1992-734.                                          
               However, we do not decide this issue solely on petitioners'            
          failure timely to request waivers, but instead, we have                     
          considered the issue on its merits.  Petitioners urge that they             
          relied on the respective offering materials and Becker in                   
          deciding on the valuation claimed on their tax returns.  Fishbach           
          maintains that he relied on Hertan as well.  Petitioners contend            
          that such reliance was reasonable, and, therefore, that                     
          respondent should have waived the section 6659 additions to                 
          tax.18  However, as we explained above in finding petitioners               


          18   In their posttrial brief, the Gollins referenced the reports           
          prepared by Carmagnola in support of the reasonableness of the              
          claimed valuation.  For reasons discussed supra, we consider the            
                                                             (continued...)           



Page:  Previous  70  71  72  73  74  75  76  77  78  79  80  81  82  83  84  85  86  87  88  89  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011