- 19 -
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). Although we have considered each case on its own
particular facts and circumstances, in all but two of the
Plastics Recycling cases5 we found the taxpayers liable for the
additions to tax for negligence.
In Provizer v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1992-177, the test
case for the group of cases, we resolved the Plastics Recycling
issues as follows: (1) We found that each recycler had a fair
market value of not more than $50,000; (2) we held that the
transaction, which was virtually identical to the transaction in
the present case, was a sham because it lacked economic substance
and a business purpose; (3) we sustained the additions to tax for
negligence under section 6653(a)(1) and (2); (4) we sustained the
addition to tax for valuation overstatement under section 6659
because the underpayment of taxes related directly to the
overvaluation of the recyclers; and (5) we 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
5 In Dyckman v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1999-79, and
Zidanich v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1995-382, we held the
taxpayers were not negligent with respect to their participation
in the Plastics Recycling program. Both cases involved unusual
circumstances not present in this case.
Page: Previous 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011