- 29 -
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 machines 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 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. Statute of Limitations
In their petition, the Davids alleged that the notice of
deficiency in docket No. 24512-89 was not issued within the
statutory limitations period. This issue appears to have been
abandoned. The Stipulation of Settled Issues in docket No.
24512-89 indicates that the only issues remaining for decision in
that case are the potential liability of the Davids for additions
Page: Previous 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011