Oreland A. and Lucille S. Thornsjo - Page 37




                                       - 37 -                                         
          Provizer v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1992-177.  In Provizer, our            
          finding that the recyclers were overvalued was the dominant                 
          factor that led us to hold that the transaction lacked economic             
          substance.  See Sann v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1997-259.                  
          Similarly, in the present cases the overvaluation of the                    
          recyclers was a dominant factor in regard to:  (1) The disallowed           
          tax credits, and other benefits in these cases; (2) the                     
          underpayments of tax; and (3) the determination that the Hamilton           
          transaction lacked economic substance.                                      
               Lastly, we note that petitioners’ argument is similar to the           
          arguments that were raised in other plastics recycling cases.               
          See Merino v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1997-385, affd. 196 F.3d             
          147 (3d Cir. 1999); Singer v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1997-325;            
          Kaliban v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1997-271; Sann v.                       
          Commissioner, supra.  In all of those cases, we rejected this               
          argument.                                                                   
          2.  Concession of the Deficiency                                            
               Petitioners also argue that Hamilton’s concession in the               
          underlying partnership case precludes imposition of the section             
          6659 additions to tax.  Petitioners contend that Hamilton’s                 
          concession renders any inquiry into the grounds for such                    
          deficiencies moot.  Petitioners argue that absent such inquiry it           
          cannot be known whether their underpayments were attributable to            
          a valuation overstatement or other discrepancy and that without a           
          finding that a valuation overstatement contributed to an                    





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