- 8 - made an attempt independently to evaluate or appraise the energy management systems equipment, point to the conclusion that any reliance that petitioner placed on Mr. Kanter as to the valuation was unreasonable. See Addington v. Commissioner, 205 F.3d 54, 62 (2d Cir. 2000), affg. Sann v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1997-259; Gilman v. Commissioner, 933 F.2d 143, 151 (2d Cir. 1991), affg. T.C. Memo. 1989-684; Singer v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1997-325. In light of the strict standard for abuse of discretion, we conclude that respondent did not err by not exercising his discretion under section 6659(e) to waive the addition to tax for valuation overstatement. Nor do we conclude that respondent erred as to the increased rate of interest under section 6621(c). Section 6621(c) provides that increased interest is due if a "substantial underpayment" is attributable to a "tax motivated transaction". A substantial underpayment is an underpayment of more than $1,000. See sec. 6621(c)(2). A tax-motivated transaction includes any valuation overstatement under section 6659. See sec. 6621(c)(3)(A)(i). Because we have determined that petitioner had a valuation overstatement under section 6659, we hold that petitioner is liable under section 6621(c) for an increased rate of interest on the underpayment attributable thereto. See Barlow v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2000-339 (“once we decide that there is a tax-motivated transaction such as a valuation overstatement * *Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011