- 28 -
determinations in the notices of deficiency. Even so,
petitioners' counsel obtained copies of these reports and urge
that they support the reasonableness of the values reported on
petitioners' returns. Not surprisingly, petitioners did not call
Carmagnola to testify in these cases,13 but preferred instead to
rely solely upon his preliminary, ill-founded valuation
estimates. The Carmagnola reports were a part of the record
considered by this Court and reviewed by the Sixth Circuit Court
of Appeals in the Provizer case, where we held the taxpayers
negligent. Consistent therewith, we find in these cases, as we
have found previously, that the reports prepared by Carmagnola
are unreliable and of no consequence. Petitioners are not
relieved of the negligence additions to tax based on the
preliminary reports prepared by Carmagnola.
Petitioners' reliance on Mollen v. United States, 72 AFTR 2d
93-6443, 93-2 USTC par. 50,585 (D. Ariz. 1993) is misplaced. The
taxpayer in Mollen was a medical doctor who specialized in
diabetes and who, on behalf of the Arizona Medical Association,
led a continuing medical education (CME) accreditation program
for local hospitals. The underlying tax matter involved the
taxpayer's investment in Diabetics CME Group, Ltd., a limited
partnership which invested in the production, marketing, and
distribution of medical educational video tapes. The District
13 Carmagnola has not been called to testify in any of the
Plastics Recycling cases before us.
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