- 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 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011