- 3 - After concessions by petitioners,2 the issues remaining for decision are as follows: (1) Whether petitioners are liable for additions to tax under section 6653(a)(1) and (2) for negligence or intentional disregard of rules or regulations. We hold that they are. (2) Whether assessment of additional interest under section 6621(c) without prior opportunity to contest such assessment violates the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. We hold that it does not. 2 Petitioners do not contest that the Sentinel EPS recyclers that are involved in these cases were overvalued. See Gottsegen v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1997-314; see also Ulanoff v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1999-170. Petitioners therefore concede that they are liable for the addition to tax for valuation overstatement under sec. 6659 for 1982. Further, petitioners do not contest (other than on constitutional grounds) that they are liable for additional interest under sec. 6621(c) with respect to the underpayment for 1982. See sec. 6621(c)(3)(A)(i), (v); Ulanoff v. Commissioner, supra. Finally, it would appear that petitioners have abandoned their contention regarding the statute of limitations (the so- called Davenport issue) in view of the recent affirmance of this Court’s opinion on that issue by the Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. See Davenport Recycling Associates v. Commissioner, 220 F.3d 1255 (11th Cir. 2000), affg. T.C. Memo. 1998-347; see also Klein v. United States, 86 F. Supp.2d 690 (E.D. Mich. 1999); Clark v. United States, 68 F. Supp.2d 1333, 1342-1346 (N.D. Ga. 1999); Kohn v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1999- 150. However, if we are mistaken in this regard, then we refer the parties to paragraph 3 of the stipulation of facts, and we decide the Davenport issue in respondent’s favor based on the foregoing precedent.Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011