Richard L. and Kathryn Dyckman - Page 11




                                       - 11 -                                         

          have failed to establish a timely request for a waiver, we cannot           
          hold that respondent abused his discretion to waive the addition            
          to tax for the valuation overstatement.  See Haught v.                      
          Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1993-58.  Further, petitioners concede             
          that there was an improper valuation, and there is nothing else             
          on the record before us to establish that there was a reasonable            
          basis for the valuation as required by section 6659(e).  In light           
          of the stringent abuse of discretion standard, we cannot conclude           
          that respondent abused his discretion in failing to exercise the            
          authority under section 6659(e) to waive the section 6659                   
          addition to tax.                                                            
               In view of the foregoing, we sustain respondent's                      
          determination that petitioners are liable for the section 6659              
          valuation overstatement addition to tax.                                    
          To reflect our disposition of the disputed issues,                          


                                        Decision will be entered                      
                                   for petitioners as to the additions to             
                                   tax under section 6653(a)(1) and (2)               
                                   and for respondent as to the addition              
                                   to tax under section 6659.                         










Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  

Last modified: May 25, 2011