Jeffrey I. and Roberta H. Stone - Page 17

                                       - 17 -                                         
               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            
          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 their                    
          respective stipulations of fact and stipulations of settled                 
          issues filed shortly before trial.  The record plainly supports             
          respondent's determinations in these cases 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.                                                        
          Issue 1.  Section 6653(a) Negligence                                        
               In notices of deficiency, respondent determined that                   
          petitioners were liable for additions to tax for negligence under           

Page:  Previous  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011