Philippe and Nadine Grelsamer - Page 60

                                       - 60 -                                         
          6659 addition to tax.  We reject each of these arguments in these           
          cases for reasons set forth below.                                          
               1.  The Grounds for Petitioners' Underpayments                         
               Section 6659 does not apply to underpayments of tax that are           
          not "attributable to" valuation overstatements.  See McCrary v.             
          Commissioner, 92 T.C. 827 (1989); Todd v. Commissioner, 89 T.C.             
          912 (1987), affd. 862 F.2d 540 (5th Cir. 1988).  To the extent              
          taxpayers claim tax benefits that are disallowed on grounds                 
          separate and independent from alleged valuation overstatements,             
          the resulting underpayments of tax are not regarded as                      
          attributable to valuation overstatements.  Krause v.                        
          Commissioner, 99 T.C. 132, 178 (1992) (citing Todd v.                       
          Commissioner, supra).  However, when valuation is an integral               
          factor in disallowing deductions and credits, section 6659 is               
          applicable.  See Illes v. Commissioner, 982 F.2d 163, 167 (6th              
          Cir. 1992), affg. T.C. Memo. 1991-449; Gilman v. Commissioner,              
          933 F.2d 143, 151 (2d Cir. 1991) (section 6659 addition to tax              
          applies if a finding of lack of economic substance is "due in               
          part" to a valuation overstatement), affg. T.C. Memo. 1989-684;             
          Masters v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1994-197, affd. without                 
          published opinion 70 F.3d 1262 (4th Cir. 1995); Harness v.                  
          Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1991-321.                                          
               Petitioners argue that the disallowance of the claimed tax             
          benefits was not "attributable to" a valuation overstatement.               






Page:  Previous  50  51  52  53  54  55  56  57  58  59  60  61  62  63  64  65  66  67  68  69  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011