Patty K. Copeland, a.k.a. Patty K. White - Page 12




                                       - 12 -                                         
               Language in Heasley v. Commissioner, supra at 386,                     
          suggesting that profit objective, for purposes of section 6621(c)           
          increased interest, be evaluated at the individual investor level           
          is not apropos.  Heasley did not involve a partnership                      
          investment.                                                                 
               In light of the lack of profit objective and the lack of               
          economic substance associated with the activities and investments           
          of the Garfield and Cardinal limited partnerships, petitioners              
          are liable for increased interest under section 6621(c).  Other             
          arguments made by petitioners and not addressed specifically                
          herein have been considered and are rejected.                               
               For the reasons stated, respondent's imposition of increased           
          interest under section 6621(c) is sustained.  We shall grant                
          respondent’s motion for partial summary judgment and deny                   
          petitioners’ motion for partial summary judgment.                           

                                        To reflect the foregoing, an                  
                                   appropriate order will be issued.                  


















Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  

Last modified: May 25, 2011