Robert D. and Patricia K. Kaliban, et al. - Page 67

                                               - 67 -                                                 
            particularly with respect to valuation, petitioners relied upon                           
            advice that was outside the scope of expertise and experience of                          
            their purported advisers.  Alter and Feinstein had no education,                          
            special qualifications, or professional skills or experience in                           
            plastics engineering, plastics recycling, or plastics materials.                          
            Consequently, we consider petitioners' reliance on the Mauerman                           
            case inappropriate.                                                                       
                  We hold that petitioners did not have a reasonable basis for                        
            the adjusted bases or valuations claimed on their tax returns                             
            with respect to their investments in the Partnerships.  In these                          
            cases, respondent could find that petitioners' respective                                 
            reliance on Alter and Feinstein was unreasonable.  The records in                         
            these cases do not establish an abuse of discretion on the part                           
            of respondent but support respondent's position.  We hold that                            
            respondent's refusal to waive the section 6659 additions to tax                           
            in these cases is not an abuse of discretion.  Petitioners are                            
            liable for the respective section 6659 additions to tax at the                            
            rate of 30 percent of the underpayments of tax attributable to                            
            the disallowed tax benefits.  Respondent is sustained on this                             
            issue.                                                                                    
            C.  Petitioners' Motions For Leave To File Motion For Decision                            
            Ordering Relief From the Negligence Penalty and the Penalty Rate                          
            of Interest and To File Supporting Memorandum of Law                                      
                  Long after the trials of these cases, petitioners each filed                        
            a Motion For Leave To File Motion For Decision Ordering Relief                            







Page:  Previous  56  57  58  59  60  61  62  63  64  65  66  67  68  69  70  71  72  73  74  75  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011