- 28 -
We conclude that decedent made a reasonable effort to
obtain, and in fact received, appropriate advice in respect of
his investment and that he therefore was not negligent within the
meaning of section 6653(a).
Section 6661(a) (Substantial Understatement)
Respondent has asserted additions to tax under section
6661(a) for substantial understatement. Petitioner contends that
there was substantial authority for decedent's return position
that would operate to eliminate the substantial understatement.
Sec. 6661(b)(2)(B)(ii).
In this case, resolution of the at-risk issue is based
primarily on a conclusion drawn from complex and interrelated
contractual documents. See Waters v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo.
1991-462, affd. 978 F.2d 1310 (2d Cir. 1992). The facts of this
case are similar to the facts of a number of other cases in which
taxpayers prevailed and were found by this Court to be at risk
with respect to sale-leaseback transactions. See, e.g., Levy v.
Commissioner, 91 T.C. 838 (1988); Gefen v. Commissioner, 87 T.C.
1471 (1986); Brady v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1990-626; Emershaw
v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1990-246, affd. 949 F.2d 841 (6th
Cir. 1991). We have also found that many similarly situated
taxpayers, who did not prevail and were found to be not at risk,
nevertheless had substantial authority for positions taken on
their returns. See Waters v. Commissioner, supra; Epsten v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1991-252; Moser v. Commissioner, T.C.
Page: Previous 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011