- 5 -
a fair market value of not more than $50,000; (2) we held that
the transaction, which was virtually identical to the transaction
in the present case, was a sham because it lacked economic
substance and a business purpose; (3) we sustained the additions
to tax for negligence under section 6653(a)(1) and (2); (4) we
sustained the addition to tax for valuation overstatement under
section 6659; and (5) we held that the partnership losses and tax
credits claimed with respect to the plastics recycling
partnership at issue were attributable to tax-motivated
transactions within the meaning of section 6621(c). See also
Addington v. Commissioner, 205 F.3d 54 (2d Cir. 2000), affg. Sann
v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1997-259.
We have decided many Plastics Recycling cases that, like
this case, involve the question of additions to tax for
negligence. See, e.g., 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, affd. sub nom. Addington
v. Commissioner, 205 F.3d 54 (2d Cir. 2000). The guidelines
concerning the question of negligence in the context of the
Plastics Recycling transactions are by now well established.
The Standard Settlement Offer
In approximately February 1988, respondent formulated a
standard settlement offer that was made available to taxpayers in
docketed Plastics Recycling cases. On August 10, 1988, the
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011