- 44 -
investment tax credit because the agreement in question was a
license and not a lease. In both cases the underpayment was
deemed attributable to something other than a valuation
overstatement.
This Court has held that concession of the investment tax
credit in and of itself does not relieve taxpayers of liability
for the section 6659 addition to tax. Dybsand v. Commissioner,
T.C. Memo. 1994-56; Chiechi v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1993-630.
Instead, what is significant is the ground upon which the
investment tax credit is disallowed or conceded. Chiechi v.
Commissioner, supra. Even in situations in which there are
arguably two grounds to support a deficiency and one supports a
section 6659 addition to tax and the other does not, the taxpayer
may still be liable for the addition to tax. Gainer v.
Commissioner, 893 F.2d 225, 228 (9th Cir. 1990), affg. T.C. Memo.
1988-416; Irom v. Commissioner, 866 F.2d 545, 547 (2d Cir. 1989),
vacating in part and remanding T.C. Memo. 1988-211; Harness v.
Commissioner, supra.
No argument was made and no evidence was presented to the
Court in the present cases to prove that disallowance and
concession of the investment tax credits related to anything
other than a valuation overstatement. To the contrary,
petitioners stipulated substantially the same facts concerning
the underlying transactions as we found in Provizer v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1992-177. In the Provizer case, we held
that the taxpayers were liable for the section 6659 addition to
Page: Previous 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011