Oreland A. and Lucille S. Thornsjo - Page 34




                                       - 34 -                                         
          factor in disallowing deductions and credits, section 6659 is               
          applicable.  See Merino v. Commissioner, 196 F.3d 147 (3d Cir.              
          1999), affg. T.C. Memo. 1997-385; Zfass v. Commissioner, 118 F.3d           
          184 (4th Cir. 1997), affg. T.C. Memo. 1996-167; Illes v.                    
          Commissioner, 982 F.2d 163 (6th Cir. 1992), affg. T.C. Memo.                
          1991-449; Gilman v. Commissioner, 933 F.2d 143, 151 (2d Cir.                
          1991), affg. T.C. Memo. 1989-684; Massengill v. Commissioner, 876           
          F.2d 616 (8th Cir. 1989), affg. T.C. Memo. 1988-427.                        
               Petitioners’ reliance on Gainer v. Commissioner, supra, and            
          Todd v. Commissioner, supra, ignores that this Court as well as             
          the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, the court to which             
          appeals in these cases lie, has held that “When an underpayment             
          stems from disallowed depreciation deductions or investment                 
          credit due to lack of economic substance, the deficiency is                 
          attributable to overstatement of value, and subject to the                  
          penalty under section 6659.”  Massengill v. Commissioner, supra             
          at 619-620.                                                                 
               We also find that the facts in these cases are                         
          distinguishable from the facts in Gainer v. Commissioner, supra,            
          Todd v. Commissioner, supra, and McCrary v. Commissioner, supra.            
          In Gainer and Todd, it was found that a valuation overstatement             
          did not contribute to an underpayment of taxes.  In those cases,            
          the underpayments were due exclusively to the fact that the                 
          property in each case had not been placed in service.  In                   
          McCrary, the underpayments were deemed to result from a                     





Page:  Previous  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  30  31  32  33  34  35  36  37  38  39  40  41  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011