- 24 -
contention with respect to the underlying deficiency not
previously considered in Provizer.5
The record in the present case regarding the Clearwater
transactions plainly supports respondent's determination
regarding the underlying deficiency. Petitioners have conceded
overvaluation of the Sentinel EPE recyclers. The overvaluation
of the Sentinel EPE recyclers was integral to our holding in
Provizer, and the overvaluation in this case is inseparable from
petitioners' claimed tax benefits. In fact, the overvaluation is
the principal ground for the disallowance of petitioners' claimed
tax benefits. Cf. McCrary v. Commissioner, supra at 859; Zenkel
v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1996-398.
We will therefore not revisit our decision in Provizer and
reconsider whether the Plastics Recycling leasing program in
which Clearwater participated was an economic sham. As in
Provizer, we rely heavily on the fact that the Sentinel EPE
recyclers were highly overvalued. On the basis of the same
objective criteria and for the reasons discussed in detail in
Provizer, we hold meritless the contention that the offsetting
nature of the various steps of the Clearwater transactions made
5 As previously mentioned, for a detailed discussion of the
facts and the applicable law in the substantially identical case,
see Provizer v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1992-177, affd. per
curiam without published opinion 996 F.2d 1216 (6th Cir. 1993).
Page: Previous 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011