- 63 -
four machines in operation. Two other machines, which had been
shipped to their respective end-users at least 3 months earlier
had not yet been hooked up. Although an end-user apparently had
been awaiting Empire's last recycler for at least 3 months, as
indicated by the May 7 and August 10 printouts, the recycler had
not yet been shipped. The information in the August 10 update
and the other progress reports submitted by petitioners raised
serious questions with respect to the demand for the Sentinel EPE
recyclers, the demand for recycled plastic pellets, and the
responsiveness of PI. Nonetheless, petitioners all invested in
Foam, through Jabrilach Recycling, in 1982 without further
investigation. Petitioners have failed to establish that they
monitored their investments closely. They cannot reasonably be
relieved of the negligence additions to tax on the ground of
alleged attentiveness to their investments as they have not
established such attentiveness, either before or after they made
the investments.
Petitioners cite a number of cases in support of their
positions, but primarily rely on Durrett v. Commissioner, 71 F.3d
515 (5th Cir. 1996), affg. in part and revg. in part T.C. Memo.
1994-179; Chamberlain v. Commissioner, 66 F.3d 729 (5th Cir.
1995), affg. in part and revg. in part T.C. Memo. 1994-228;
Anderson v. Commissioner, 62 F.3d 1266 (10th Cir. 1995), affg.
T.C. Memo. 1993-607; Mollen v. United States, 72 AFTR 2d 93-6443,
Page: Previous 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011