Daniel L. and Ingrid N. Carroll - Page 33




                                       - 33 -                                         

          defined in section 6621(c)(3).  The increased rate of interest is           
          effective only with respect to interest accruing after December             
          31, 1984, notwithstanding that the transaction was entered into             
          before that date.  See Solowiejczyk v. Commissioner, 85 T.C. 552            
          (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                 
          Program to which petitioners’ 1981 underpayment is attributable             
          was a sham transaction.  The tax-motivated increased rate of                
          interest is therefore clearly applicable.  Accordingly, we                  
          sustain respondent’s determination on this issue.5                          
              Petitioners have made other arguments that we have                     
          considered in reaching our decision.  To the extent that we have            
          not discussed these arguments, we find them to be without merit.            
               To reflect our disposition of the disputed issues,                     

                                             Decision will be entered                 
                                        for respondent.                               


               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 was such a            
          valuation overstatement in the present case.  See the discussion            
          supra, under Issue (3), regarding sec. 6659.  Accordingly,                  
          respondent's determination could also be sustained on this                  
          alternative basis.                                                          





Page:  Previous  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  30  31  32  33  

Last modified: May 25, 2011