- 22 -
deficiency not previously considered in Provizer.4 There is a
complete failure by petitioner to prove that the Plymouth
transaction was in any meaningful manner different from the
circular transaction found to be an economic sham in Provizer.
We will not revisit our decision in Provizer and reconsider
whether the Plastics Recycling leasing program in which Plymouth
participated was an economic sham. As in Provizer, we rely
heavily on the fact that the Sentinel EPE machines were highly
overvalued. We therefore sustain respondent's determination
regarding the underlying deficiency for 1981.
Issue (2) Section 6621(c) Additional Interest for 1981
Respondent determined that petitioner is liable for
additional interest for 1981 with respect to the underpayment
attributable to petitioner's investment in Plymouth.
Section 6621(c), formerly section 6621(d), provides for an
increased rate of interest if the underpayment of tax exceeds
$1,000 and is attributable to a tax-motivated transaction as
defined in section 6621(c)(3). The increased rate of interest is
effective only with respect to interest accruing after December
31, 1984, notwithstanding that the transaction was entered into
before that date. See Solowiejczyk v. Commissioner, 85 T.C. 552
4 As previously mentioned, for a detailed discussion of the
facts and the applicable law in a 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 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011