- 28 -
petitioner's 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
of the Sentinel EPE recyclers. Respondent is sustained on the
question of the underlying deficiencies. We note that
petitioners have explicitly conceded this issue in the respective
stipulations of settled issues filed shortly before trial. The
record plainly supports respondent's determination regardless of
such concessions. For a detailed discussion of the facts and the
applicable law in a substantially identical case, see Provizer v.
Commissioner, supra.
A. Section 6653(a) - Negligence
In a notice of deficiency, respondent determined that
petitioners William and Joan Spears are liable for the negligence
additions to tax under section 6653(a)(1) and (2). Spears has
the burden of proving that respondent's determination is
erroneous. Rule 142(a); Luman v. Commissioner, 79 T.C. 846, 860-
861 (1982).
In an amendment to answer, respondent asserted that
petitioners Vincent and Clotilde Farrell are liable for additions
to tax for negligence under section 6653(a)(1) and (2). Because
respondent raised these additions to tax for the first time in an
Page: Previous 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011