- 20 -
in excess of $50,000; (2) held that the transaction, which is
almost identical to the Partnership transactions in these
consolidated cases, was a sham because it lacked economic
substance and a business purpose; (3) upheld the section 6659
addition to tax for valuation overstatement since the
underpayment of taxes was directly related to the overstatement
of the value of the Sentinel EPE recyclers; and (4) held that
losses and credits claimed with respect to Clearwater were
attributable to tax-motivated transactions within the meaning of
section 6621(c). In reaching the conclusion that the transaction
lacked economic substance and a business purpose, this Court
relied heavily upon the overvaluation of the Sentinel EPE
recyclers.
Although petitioners have not agreed to be bound by the
Provizer opinion, they have stipulated that the investments in
the Sentinel EPE recyclers in these cases are similar to the
investment described in Provizer v. Commissioner, supra. The
underlying transactions in these consolidated cases, and the
Sentinel EPE recyclers considered in these cases, are the same
type of transaction and same type of machine considered in
Provizer v. Commissioner, supra.
Based on the entire records in these cases, including the
extensive stipulations, testimony of respondent's experts, and
petitioners' testimony, we hold that each of the Partnership
transactions herein was a sham and lacked economic substance. In
reaching this conclusion, we rely heavily upon the overvaluation
Page: Previous 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011