Bernice M. and Stanley M. Ulanoff - Page 23




                                       - 23 -                                         

          (1985), affd. per curiam without published opinion 795 F.2d 1005            
          (2d Cir. 1986); Provizer v. Commissioner, supra.                            
               As we held in Provizer, a tax-motivated transaction                    
          includes any sham or fraudulent transaction.  See sec.                      
          6621(c)(3)(A)(v).  We have held that the Plastics Recycling                 
          leasing program to which petitioner's 1981 underpayment is                  
          attributable was a sham transaction.  The tax-motivated increased           
          rate of interest is therefore clearly applicable.  Accordingly,             
          we sustain respondent on this issue.5                                       
          Issue (3)  Section 6653(a)(1) and (2) Negligence                            
               Respondent determined that petitioner is liable for                    
          additions to tax under section 6653(a)(1) and (2) with respect to           
          the underpayment attributable to petitioner's investments in                
          Plymouth for 1981 and in Taylor for 1982 through 1984.                      
          Petitioner contends that he was not negligent because: (1) Based            
          on his independent investigation he reasonably expected to make a           
          profit from his investment in the transactions; (2) he reasonably           
          relied upon advice from certain individuals; and (3) he acted               
          reasonably in light of his passion for recycling and his concern            
          for the environment.                                                        



               5  We note that a tax-motivated transaction also includes              
          any valuation overstatement within the meaning of sec. 6659(c).             
          See sec. 6621(c)(3)(A)(i).  It is apparent that there were such             
          valuation overstatements in the present cases.  See the                     
          discussion under Issue (4), infra, regarding sec. 6659.                     
          Accordingly, respondent's determination could also be sustained             
          on this alternative basis.                                                  



Page:  Previous  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  30  31  32  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011