Philippe and Nadine Grelsamer - Page 59

                                       - 59 -                                         
          attributable to" a valuation overstatement.  Sec. 6659(a), (d).             
          A valuation overstatement exists if the fair market value (or               
          adjusted basis) of property claimed on a return equals or exceeds           
          150 percent of the amount determined to be the correct amount.              
          Sec. 6659(c).  If the claimed valuation exceeds 250 percent of              
          the correct value, the addition is equal to 30 percent of the               
          underpayment.  Sec. 6659(b).                                                
               Petitioners claimed tax benefits, including an investment              
          tax credit and a business energy credit, based on purported                 
          values of $1,162,666 for each Sentinel EPE recycler.  Petitioners           
          concede that the fair market value of a Sentinel EPE recycler in            
          1981 and 1982 was not in excess of $50,000.  Therefore, if                  
          disallowance of petitioners' claimed tax benefits is attributable           
          to such valuation overstatements, petitioners are liable for the            
          section 6659 addition to tax at the rate of 30 percent of the               
          underpayment of tax attributable to the tax benefits claimed with           
          respect to the Partnerships.                                                
               Petitioners contend that section 6659 does not apply in                
          their cases for the following reasons:  (1) Disallowance of the             
          claimed tax benefits was attributable to other than a valuation             
          overstatement; (2) petitioners' concessions of the claimed tax              
          benefits precludes imposition of the section 6659 additions to              
          tax; and (3) respondent erroneously failed to waive the section             








Page:  Previous  49  50  51  52  53  54  55  56  57  58  59  60  61  62  63  64  65  66  67  68  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011