- 6 -
On those same dates, each petitioner who filed a motion for leave
also lodged with the Court a motion for decision ordering relief
from the additions to tax for negligence and the increased rate
of interest, with attachments, and a memorandum in support of
such motion. Subsequently, respondent filed objections, with
attachments, and memoranda in support thereof. For reasons
discussed in more detail at the end of this opinion, and also in
Farrell v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1996-295, petitioners'
motions shall be denied.
The issues remaining in these consolidated cases are: (1)
Whether the assessment in docket No. 24512-89 (David) is barred
by the statute of limitations; (2) whether petitioners are liable
for additions to tax under section 6653(a)(1) and (2) for
negligence; and (3) whether petitioners are liable for additions
to tax under section 6659 for underpayments of tax attributable
to valuation overstatement.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Some of the facts have been stipulated in each case and are
so found. The stipulated facts and attached exhibits are
incorporated in the respective cases by this reference.
A. The Plastics Recycling Transactions
These cases concern petitioners' investments in four limited
partnerships that leased Sentinel expanded polyethylene (EPE)
recyclers: Phoenix Recycling Group (Phoenix), Scarborough
Leasing Associates (Scarborough), SAB Resource Reclamation
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