- 42 -
investigation of the fair market value of the recyclers or of the
underlying economic viability or financial structure of SAB Foam.
Further, most of petitioner’s professional advisers had a
financial interest in either SAB Foam or another similar
partnership. The Plastics Recycling transaction was a sham, and,
as a sophisticated attorney, petitioner should have been able to
figure this out if he really had tried. Upon consideration of
the entire record, respondent’s determinations that petitioners
are subject to negligence penalties under section 6653(a)(1) and
(2), with respect to their tax return for 1982, are sustained.
Issue 2. Piggyback Agreement
Petitioners argue that they are entitled to the benefits of
the Stipulation of Settlement for Tax Shelter Adjustments
(piggyback agreement) applicable to Plastics Recycling cases.
Petitioners claim they are in essentially the same position as
the taxpayers in Fisher v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1994-434, and
Estate of Satin v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1994-435.
Additionally, petitioners argue that in the stipulation of facts
in the present case, “the parties unequivocally stipulated that
petitioner agreed to be bound to the lead cases under the
piggyback agreement. (Supp. Stip., pars. 34-35).” Respondent
disagrees with these arguments, and we agree with respondent.
In Fisher and Estate of Satin this Court summarized the
background of the piggyback agreement in the Plastics Recycling
Page: Previous 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011