- 35 -
T.C. Memo. 1992-177. Having so concluded, it follows that there
was a valuation overstatement under section 6659.
Finally, petitioner contends that respondent abused his
discretion in failing to exercise the authority under section
6659(e) to waive the addition to tax for valuation overstatement.
Under section 6659(e), the Commissioner may waive all or any
part of the addition to tax for valuation overstatement based on
a showing by the taxpayer that there was a "reasonable basis for
the valuation * * * claimed on the return and that such claim was
in good faith." The Commissioner's waiver is discretionary and
subject to review for an abuse of discretion. See Krause v.
Commissioner, 99 T.C. 132 (1992); Hildebrand v. Commissioner, 28
F.3d 1024 (10th Cir. 1994).
On the record before us, there is no indication that
petitioner requested a waiver from respondent at any time prior
to the filing of his posttrial brief. Given that petitioner
failed to establish a timely request for a waiver, we cannot hold
that respondent abused his discretion in failing to waive the
addition to tax. See Haught v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1993-58.
In any event, there is nothing in the record to establish that
there was a reasonable basis for the valuation as required by
section 6659(e). In light of the stringent standard for abuse of
discretion, we cannot conclude that respondent abused his
discretion in failing to exercise the authority under section
6659(e) to waive the addition to tax for valuation overstatement.
Page: Previous 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011