John Sann and Marianne Sann, et al. - Page 73

                                       - 73 -                                         
          the section 6659 additions to tax.  We reject each of these                 
          arguments for reasons set forth below.                                      
               1.  The Grounds For Petitioners' Underpayments                         
               Section 6659 does not apply to underpayments of tax that are           
          not "attributable to" valuation overstatements.  See McCrary v.             
          Commissioner, 92 T.C. at 827; Todd v. Commissioner, 89 T.C. 912             
          (1987), affd. 862 F.2d 540 (5th Cir. 1988).  To the extent                  
          taxpayers claim tax benefits that are disallowed on grounds                 
          separate and independent from alleged valuation overstatements,             
          the resulting underpayments of tax are not regarded as                      
          attributable to valuation overstatements.  Krause v.                        
          Commissioner, 99 T.C. at 178 (citing Todd v. Commissioner,                  
          supra).  However, when valuation is an integral factor in                   
          disallowing deductions and credits, section 6659 is applicable.             
          See Illes v. Commissioner, 982 F.2d 163, 167 (6th Cir. 1992),               
          affg. T.C. Memo. 1991-449; Gilman v. Commissioner, 933 F.2d 143,            
          151 (2d Cir. 1991) (the section 6659 addition to tax applies if a           
          finding of lack of economic substance is "due in part" to a                 
          valuation overstatement), affg. T.C. Memo. 1989-684; Masters v.             
          Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1994-197, affd. without published                  
          opinion 70 F.3d 1262 (4th Cir. 1995); Harness v. Commissioner,              
          T.C. Memo. 1991-321.                                                        
               Petitioners argue that the disallowance of the claimed tax             
          benefits was not "attributable to" a valuation overstatement.               
          According to petitioners, the tax benefits were disallowed                  




Page:  Previous  63  64  65  66  67  68  69  70  71  72  73  74  75  76  77  78  79  80  81  82  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011