- 31 -
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, although procedural rulings have involved many
more favorable results for taxpayers.14
In Provizer v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1992-177, 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-
13(...continued)
T.C. Memo. 1992-605, concerned other issues.
14 In Zidanich v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1995-382, we held
the taxpayers liable for the sec. 6659 addition to tax, but not
liable for the negligence additions to tax under sec. 6653(a).
As indicated in our opinion, the Zidanich case, and the Steinberg
case consolidated with it for opinion, involved exceptional
circumstances.
In Estate of Satin v. Commissioner, supra, and Fisher v.
Commissioner, supra, after the decision in Provizer v.
Commissioner, supra, the taxpayers were allowed to elect to
accept a beneficial settlement because of exceptional
circumstances. In Farrell v. Commissioner, supra, we rejected
the taxpayers' claim to a similar belated settlement arrangement
since the circumstances were different and the taxpayers
previously had rejected settlement and elected to litigate the
case. See also Baratelli v. Commissioner, supra; Zenkel v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1996-398.
Page: Previous 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011