- 50 -
petitioners' reliance on McCrary v. Commissioner, 92 T.C. at 827,
is inappropriate.8
We held in Provizer v. Commissioner, supra, that each
Sentinel EPE recycler had a fair market value not in excess of
$50,000. Our finding in the Provizer case that the Sentinel EPE
recyclers had been overvalued was integral to and inseparable
from our holding of a lack of economic substance. Petitioners
stipulated that the Plymouth transaction was similar to the
Clearwater transaction described in the Provizer case, and that
the fair market value of a Sentinel EPE recycler in 1981 was not
in excess of $50,000. Given those concessions, and the fact that
the record here plainly shows that the overvaluation of the
recyclers was the only reason for the disallowance of the claimed
investment tax and business energy credits, we conclude that the
amount of the deficiency corresponding thereto was attributable
to overvaluation of the Sentinel EPE recyclers.
3. Section 6659(e)
Petitioners argue that respondent erroneously failed to
waive the section 6659 addition to tax. Section 6659(e)
authorizes respondent to waive all or part of the addition to tax
8 Petitioners' citation of Heasley v. Commissioner, supra, in
support of the concession argument is also inappropriate. That
case was not decided by the Court of Appeals for the Fifth
Circuit on the basis of a concession. Moreover, see supra note
8 to the effect that the Courts of Appeals for the Second,
Fourth, Sixth, and Eighth Circuits and this Court have not
followed the Heasley opinion with respect to the application of
sec. 6659.
Page: Previous 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011