- 2 -
determination) for 1982 through 1988, 1993, and 1997.1 Pursuant
to section 6330(d), petitioner seeks review of respondent’s
determination. The issues for decision are: (1) Whether
respondent abused his discretion in sustaining the proposed
collection action; and (2) whether petitioner is liable for the
increased rate of interest on tax-motivated transactions under
section 6621(c), I.R.C. 1986.2
FINDINGS OF FACT
Some of the facts have been stipulated and are so found.
The first, second, third, fourth, fifth, and sixth stipulations
of fact and the attached exhibits are incorporated herein by this
reference.3
1 Unless otherwise indicated, all section references are to
the Internal Revenue Code, as amended, and all Rule references
are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure. Amounts
are rounded to the nearest dollar.
2 Before the Tax Reform Act of 1986, Pub. L. 99-514, sec.
1511(a), 100 Stat. 2744, subsec. (c) of sec. 6621 was designated
subsec. (d). The additional interest applies only after Dec. 31,
1984. Sec. 6621(c) was repealed as of Dec. 31, 1989, by the
Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1989, Pub. L. 101-239, sec.
7721(b), 103 Stat. 2399.
3 Respondent reserved relevancy objections to many of the
exhibits attached to the stipulations of fact. Fed. R. Evid. 402
provides the general rule that all relevant evidence is
admissible, while evidence which is not relevant is not
admissible. Fed. R. Evid. 401 defines relevant evidence as
“evidence having any tendency to make the existence of any fact
that is of consequence to the determination of the action more
probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence.”
While the relevance of some exhibits is certainly limited, we
find that the exhibits meet the threshold definition of relevant
(continued...)
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011