Oreland A. and Lucille S. Thornsjo - Page 21




                                       - 21 -                                         
               In Provizer v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1992-177, the test             
          cases 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 transactions in the present cases, was a sham              
          because it lacked economic substance and a business purpose;                
          (3) sustained the additions to tax for negligence under section             
          6653(a)(1) and (2); (4) sustained the addition to tax for                   
          valuation overstatement under section 6659 because the                      
          underpayment of taxes was directly related to the overvaluation             
          of the recyclers; and (5) 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).  We also                
          found that other recyclers were commercially available during the           
          year in issue.  See Provizer v. Commissioner, supra.  In reaching           
          the conclusion that the transaction lacked a business purpose,              
          this Court heavily relied upon the overvaluation of the                     
          recyclers.  Similarly, in Gottsegen v. Commissioner, supra, we              
          found that each Sentinel EPS recycler had a fair market value not           
          in excess of $50,000.                                                       
          A.  Section 6653(a)(1) and (2) Negligence                                   
               In each of the present cases, respondent determined that               
          petitioners were liable for additions to tax for negligence under           
          section 6653(a)(1) and (2) with respect to an underpayment                  





Page:  Previous  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  30  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011