- 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