- 20 -
OPINION
We have decided many Plastics Recycling cases. The majority
of these cases presented issues regarding additions to tax for
negligence and valuation overstatement. See Greene v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1997-296; Kaliban v. Commissioner, T.C.
Memo. 1997-271; Sann v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1997-259 n.13
(and cases cited therein), affd. Addington v. Commissioner, 205
F.3d 54 (2d Cir. 2000). We found the taxpayers liable for the
addition to tax for valuation overstatement in all of those cases
and liable for the additions to tax for negligence in the
overwhelming majority of those cases. In a limited number of
cases, the taxpayers also contested the underlying deficiency
arising from the disallowance of the losses and various credits
with respect to their Plastics Recycling investment. We
sustained the Commissioner on the issue of the underlying
deficiency in every one of those cases.
In Provizer v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1992-177, the test
case for the Plastics Recycling group of cases, this Court: (1)
Found that each Sentinel EPE recycler had a fair market value not
in excess of $50,000; (2) held that the Clearwater transaction
was a sham because it lacked economic substance and a business
purpose; (3) sustained the additions to tax for negligence under
section 6653(a)(1) and (2); (4) sustained the addition to tax for
valuation overstatement under section 6659 because the
Page: Previous 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011