Robert D. and Patricia K. Kaliban, et al. - Page 26

                                               - 26 -                                                 
            reports regarding Poly Reclamation from Alter's office.  As he                            
            recalled:  "To be honest with you, I didn't pay that much                                 
            attention to anything I got but I know that I got very infrequent                         
            reports * * *.  It was minuscule."                                                        
                                              OPINION                                                 
                  We have decided a large number of the Plastics Recycling                            
            group of cases.  Provizer v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1992-177,                           
            affd. without published opinion 996 F.2d 1216 (6th Cir. 1993),                            
            concerned the substance of the partnership transaction and also                           
            the additions to tax.  See also Sann v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo                           
            1997-259 and cases cited therein.  The majority of these cases,                           
            like the present cases, raised issues regarding additions to tax                          
            for negligence and valuation overstatement.  We have found the                            
            taxpayers liable for such additions to tax in all but one of the                          
            opinions to date on these issues.                                                         
                  In Provizer v. Commissioner, supra, a test case for the                             
            Plastics Recycling group of cases, this Court (1) found that each                         
            Sentinel EPE recycler had a fair market value not in excess of                            
            $50,000, (2) held that the Clearwater transaction was a sham                              
            because it lacked economic substance and a business purpose, (3)                          
            upheld the section 6659 addition to tax for valuation                                     
            overstatement since the underpayment of taxes was directly                                
            related to the overstatement of the value of the Sentinel EPE                             
            recyclers, and (4) held that losses and credits claimed with                              
            respect to Clearwater were attributable to tax-motivated                                  




Page:  Previous  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  30  31  32  33  34  35  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011