- 42 -
action, [so that] there is no valuation overstatement, but
rather an underpayment attributable to improper deductions and
credits.” Petitioner relies on Heasley v. Commissioner, 902
F.2d 380 (5th Cir. 1990), revg. T.C. Memo. 1988-408, to support
his argument. Petitioner’s reliance is misplaced.
In Heasley, the taxpayers had not graduated from high
school (although one of the taxpayers had earned a G.E.D.), held
blue collar jobs, and had no significant investment experience.
Id. at 381. Because the taxpayers were worried about their
family’s future and were aware they were not knowledgeable
enough to make investments on their own, they relied on an
investment adviser. Id. The adviser, however, led them into an
investment that involved leasing energy “units” from a
corporation and resulted in the loss of the entire amount of
their investment, as well as the Commissioner’s disallowance of
the tax benefits the taxpayers had claimed in relation to the
investment. Id. at 381-382. Because the Heasleys had
overvalued the units, the Commissioner also imposed additions to
tax under section 6659, which we upheld. Id. at 382; see also
Heasley v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1988-408.
On appeal, the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit held
that the taxpayers were not subject to the section 6659 addition
to tax, reasoning that when the Commissioner totally disallows a
deduction or credit, the underpayment is attributable to
Page: Previous 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011