- 6 - 3. This stipulation resolves all issues that relate to the items claimed on petitioners' tax returns resulting from their participation in the Plastics Recycling Program, with the exception of petitioners' potential liability for additions to the tax for valuation overstatements under I.R.C. �6659 and for negligence under the applicable provisions of �6653(a). 4. With respect to the issue of the addition to the tax under I.R.C. �6659, petitioners do not intend to contest the issue of the value of the Sentinel Recycler or the existence of a valuation overstatement on the petitioners' return; however, petitioners preserve their right to contest the issue of whether I.R.C. �6659 is applicable under the facts and circumstances of this case.[4] The only issues remaining in these consolidated cases are: (1) Whether petitioners are liable for the additions to tax for negligence or intentional disregard of rules or regulations under section 6653(a)(1) and (2); and (2) whether petitioners are liable for the addition to tax under section 6659 for an underpayment of tax attributable to valuation overstatement. Farrell's motion for decision, based in general upon circumstances not discussed herein, has been denied for reasons set forth in Farrell v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1996-295. 4 The stipulation executed by respondent and Farrell refers specifically to their 1982 tax returns. Also, the last clause of the fourth stipulation reads: "however, petitioners preserve their right to argue that the underpayment in tax is not attributable to a valuation overstatement within the meaning of I.R.C. �6659(a)(1), and that the Secretary should have waived the addition to tax pursuant to the provisions of I.R.C. �6659(e)."Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011