Wayne and Pamela Berry - Page 9




                                        - 9 -                                         
          attorney was from a reputable law firm, that one of his clients             
          made some phone calls to investigate the equipment, and that he             
          thought that Margolin had spoken with Winer.                                
                                       OPINION                                        
               We have decided many Plastics Recycling cases.  Most of                
          these cases, like the present case, have presented issues                   
          regarding additions to tax for negligence.  See, e.g., Thornsjo             
          v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2001-129; West v. Commissioner, T.C.            
          Memo. 2000-389; Barber v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2000-372;                
          Barlow v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2000-339; Ulanoff v.                     
          Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1999-170; 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. sub nom. Addington v. Commissioner, 205 F.3d 54             
          (2d Cir. 2000).  In all but two of the Plastics Recycling cases,            
          we found the taxpayers liable for the additions to tax for                  
          negligence.  Moreover, in all of those cases we found the                   
          taxpayers liable for additions to tax for valuation                         
          overstatement.                                                              
               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 recycler had a fair market value of not more            
          than $50,000; (2) held that the transaction, which was virtually            
          identical to the transaction in the present case, was a sham                






Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011