Bruce and Lois Zenkel, et al. - Page 70

                                       - 70 -                                         
               Petitioners' open-ended concessions do not obviate our                 
          finding that the Partnership transactions lacked economic                   
          substance due to overvaluation of the recyclers.  This is not a             
          situation where we have "to decide difficult valuation questions            
          for no reason other than the application of penalties."  See                
          McCrary v. Commissioner, supra at 854 n. 14.  The value of the              
          Sentinel EPE recycler was established in Provizer v.                        
          Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1992-177, and stipulated by the parties.           
          As a consequence of the inflated value assigned to the recyclers            
          by the Partnerships, petitioners claimed deductions and credits             
          that resulted in underpayments of tax, and we held that the                 
          Partnership transactions lacked economic substance.  Regardless             
          of petitioners' concessions, in these cases the underpayments of            
          tax were attributable to the valuation overstatements.                      
               Moreover, concession of the investment tax credit in and of            
          itself does not relieve taxpayers of liability for the section              
          6659 addition to tax.  See Dybsand v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo.              
          1994-56; Chiechi v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1993-630.  Instead,            
          the ground upon which the investment tax credit is disallowed or            
          conceded is significant.  Even in situations in which there are             
          arguably two grounds to support a deficiency and one supports a             
          section 6659 addition to tax and the other does not, the taxpayer           
          may still be liable for the addition to tax.  Gainer v.                     








Page:  Previous  60  61  62  63  64  65  66  67  68  69  70  71  72  73  74  75  76  77  78  79  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011