§6659 — Improper claim for Trump account contribution pilot program credit

With this amendment, Congress explicitly sought to overrule our holding in Estate ofYoung and clarify that the Tax Court hasjurisdiction over additions to tax under section 6651(a)(2) "for failure to pay an amount shown on the return where the Tax Court already hasjurisdiction to redetermine a deficiency in tax with respect to that return."3 See H.R.

Since the legislative history of§ 6659 provides no alternative method ofapplying the statute, we are persuaded that the formula contained in the committee staff's explanation evidences congressional intent with respect to calculating underpayments subject to the penalty.

at their petition was filed with the Court. 2 Petitioners concede that the Sentinel EPE recyclers that are involved in this case were overvalued. Petitioners therefore also concede that they are liable for the addition to tax for overvaluation under sec. 6659 if we hold that they are liable for the underlying deficiency. 3 Petitioners objected to many of the stipulated facts on the ground of relevancy. We have considered petitioners' objections, and they are overruled. - 4 - A. The Recycling Tra

- 2 - 6653(a)(2),2 and of $34,322.10 under section 6659.3 Respondent also determined that interest on the $140,388 underpayment must be assessed at 120 percent of the statutory rate under section 6621(c).4 The issues for decision are: (1) Whether petitioner is liable for the additions to tax under section 6653(a)(1) and (2); (2) whether petitioner is liable for the addition to tax under sec

notices of deficiency, respondent determined additions to tax with respect to petitioners’ Federal income taxes for the years and in the amounts as shown below: Oreland A. and Lucille S. Thornsjo Additions to Tax Year Sec. 6653(a)(1) Sec. 6653(a)(2) Sec. 6659 1979 $897 -0- $5,381 1980 824 -0- 4,943 1982 545 1 1,226 1983 14 1 -0- Donald L. and Diane J. Woolf Additions to Tax Year Sec. 6653(a)(1) Sec. 6653(a)(2) Sec. 6659 1979 $1,012 -0- $6,070 1982 1,393 1 5,480 1983 21 1 -0- Lawrence J. and Doro

Whether petitioner is liable for an addition to tax under section 6659 equal to 30 percent of the deficiency arising from a disallowed investment tax credit and loss that petitioner claimed from a partnership named Grade Partners (Grade), and 2.

d items notices of deficiency, respondent determined additions to tax with respect to petitioners’ Federal income taxes for the years and in the amounts as shown below: Keith E. & Marilyn B. West Additions to Tax Year Sec. 6653(a)(1) Sec. 6653(a)(2) Sec. 6659 1979 $808 -0- $4,848 1982 1,607 1 8,467 1983 25 1 -0- 1984 10 1 -0- Warren S. & Elizabeth A. West Additions to Tax Year Sec. 6653(a)(1) Sec. 6653(a)(2) Sec. 6659 1979 $953 -0- $5,717 1980 204 -0- 1,191 1982 1,239 1 4,787 1 Fifty percent of

Whether the Kanters Are Liable for the Section 6659 Addition to Tax for 1981 .

Whether the Kanters Are Liable for the Section 6659 Addition to Tax for 1981 .

Whether the Kanters Are Liable for the Section 6659 Addition to Tax for 1981 .

Whether the Kanters Are Liable for the Section 6659 Addition to Tax for 1981 .

Whether the Kanters Are Liable for the Section 6659 Addition to Tax for 1981 .

Whether the Kanters Are Liable for the Section 6659 Addition to Tax for 1981 .

Whether the Kanters Are Liable for the Section 6659 Addition to Tax for 1981 .

Whether the Kanters Are Liable for the Section 6659 Addition to Tax for 1981 .

Whether the Kanters Are Liable for the Section 6659 Addition to Tax for 1981 .

Whether the Kanters Are Liable for the Section 6659 Addition to Tax for 1981 .

Whether the Kanters Are Liable for the Section 6659 Addition to Tax for 1981 .

Whether the Kanters Are Liable for the Section 6659 Addition to Tax for 1981 .

Whether the Kanters Are Liable for the Section 6659 Addition to Tax for 1981 .

Whether the Kanters Are Liable for the Section 6659 Addition to Tax for 1981 .

Whether the Kanters Are Liable for the Section 6659 Addition to Tax for 1981 .

Whether the Kanters Are Liable for the Section 6659 Addition to Tax for 1981 .

Whether the Kanters Are Liable for the Section 6659 Addition to Tax for 1981 .

Whether the Kanters Are Liable for the Section 6659 Addition to Tax for 1981 .

Whether the Kanters Are Liable for the Section 6659 Addition to Tax for 1981 .

Whether the Kanters Are Liable for the Section 6659 Addition to Tax for 1981 .

Whether the Kanters Are Liable for the Section 6659 Addition to Tax for 1981 .

Whether the Kanters Are Liable for the Section 6659 Addition to Tax for 1981 .

Whether the Kanters Are Liable for the Section 6659 Addition to Tax for 1981 .

Whether the Kanters Are Liable for the Section 6659 Addition to Tax for 1981 .

Whether the Kanters Are Liable for the Section 6659 Addition to Tax for 1981 .

Whether the Kanters Are Liable for the Section 6659 Addition to Tax for 1981 .

Whether the Kanters Are Liable for the Section 6659 Addition to Tax for 1981 .

Whether the Kanters Are Liable for the Section 6659 Addition to Tax for 1981 .

Section 6659--Valuation Overstatement....................41 1. The Grounds for Petitioners' Underpayments ...........42 2. Concession of the Deficiency..........................47 3. Section 6659(e).......................................50 C. Petitioners' Motion for Leave To File Motion for Decision Ordering Relief from the Negligence Penalty and t

Section 6659--Valuation Overstatement....................71 1. The Grounds for Petitioners' Underpayments..........73 2. Concession of the Deficiency........................77 3. Section 6659(e).....................................81 D. Petitioners' Motions For Leave To File Motion For Decision Ordering Relief From the Negligence Penalty and the Pe

nt. MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION RUWE, Judge: Respondent determined deficiencies in petitioner's Federal income tax, additions to tax, and a penalty as follows: - 2 - Additions to Tax Year Deficiency Sec. 6653(a)(1)(A) Sec. 6653(a)(1)(B) Sec. 6659 1987 $738,211 $38,002 50 percent of the $214,997 interest due on $2,629 Addition to Tax Year Deficiency Sec. 6653(a)(1) 1988 $122 $639 Accuracy-Related Penalty Year Deficiency Sec. 6662(a) 1989 $80,314 $17,750 The issues for decision are: (1

Section 6659--Valuation Overstatement....................30 1. Concession of the Deficiency..........................32 2. Section 6659(e).......................................36 MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION DAWSON, Judge: This case was assigned to Special Trial Judge Norman H. Wolfe pursuant to the provisions of section 7443A(b)(4) and

Section 6659--Valuation Overstatement....................54 1. The Grounds for Petitioners' Underpayments..........55 2. Concession of the Deficiencies......................60 3. Section 6659(e).....................................64 C. Petitioners' Motions For Leave To File Motion For Decision Ordering Relief From the Negligence Penalty and the Pe

Section 6659--Valuation Overstatement....................54 1. The Grounds for Petitioners' Underpayments..........55 2. Concession of the Deficiencies......................60 3. Section 6659(e).....................................64 C. Petitioners' Motions For Leave To File Motion For Decision Ordering Relief From the Negligence Penalty and the Pe

Section 6659--Valuation Overstatement....................71 1. The Grounds for Petitioners' Underpayments..........73 2. Concession of the Deficiency........................77 3. Section 6659(e).....................................81 D. Petitioners' Motions For Leave To File Motion For Decision Ordering Relief From the Negligence Penalty and the Pe

Section 6659--Valuation Overstatement....................71 1. The Grounds for Petitioners' Underpayments..........73 2. Concession of the Deficiency........................77 3. Section 6659(e).....................................81 D. Petitioners' Motions For Leave To File Motion For Decision Ordering Relief From the Negligence Penalty and the Pe

Section 6659--Valuation Overstatement....................54 1. The Grounds for Petitioners' Underpayments..........55 2. Concession of the Deficiencies......................60 3. Section 6659(e).....................................64 C. Petitioners' Motions For Leave To File Motion For Decision Ordering Relief From the Negligence Penalty and the Pe

Section 6659--Valuation Overstatement....................71 1. The Grounds for Petitioners' Underpayments..........73 2. Concession of the Deficiency........................77 3. Section 6659(e).....................................81 D. Petitioners' Motions For Leave To File Motion For Decision Ordering Relief From the Negligence Penalty and the Pe

Section 6659--Valuation Overstatement....................54 1. The Grounds for Petitioners' Underpayments..........55 2. Concession of the Deficiencies......................60 3. Section 6659(e).....................................64 C. Petitioners' Motions For Leave To File Motion For Decision Ordering Relief From the Negligence Penalty and the Pe

Section 6659--Valuation Overstatement....................71 1. The Grounds for Petitioners' Underpayments..........73 2. Concession of the Deficiency........................77 3. Section 6659(e).....................................81 D. Petitioners' Motions For Leave To File Motion For Decision Ordering Relief From the Negligence Penalty and the Pe

Section 6659 - Valuation Overstatement..................58 1. The Grounds for Petitioners' Underpayments..........60 2. Concession of the Deficiency........................64 3. Section 6659(e).....................................68 MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION DAWSON, Judge: These cases were assigned to Special Trial Judge Norman H. Wol

Provizer case. In notices of deficiency, respondent determined the following deficiencies in and additions to petitioners' Federal income taxes for taxable year 1981: Additions to Tax Docket No. Petitioner Deficiency Sec. 6653(a)(1) Sec. 6653(a)(2) Sec. 6659 9915-86 Peter and Ursula Reimann $43,025.11 --- --- $8,873.10 35003-86 Edward Brodie and Estate of Alana Brodie 22,711.72 --- --- 7,944.52 3398-92 Marvin and Suzanne Yarnell 165,899.00 $7,716 1 49,770.00 13892-92 Philip and Roberta Yarnell 1

Section 6659--Valuation Overstatement...................62 1. The Grounds for Petitioners' Underpayments.........64 2. Concession of the Deficiency.......................69 3. Section 6659(e)....................................73 - 3 - D. Petitioners' Motions For Leave To File Motion For Decision Ordering Relief From the Negligence Penalty and the

Section 6659--Valuation Overstatement...................50 1. Concession of the Deficiency.......................51 2. Section 6659(e)....................................55 MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION DAWSON, Judge: These cases were assigned to Special Trial Judge Norman H. Wolfe pursuant to the provisions of section 7443A(b)(4) and Rul

Section 6659 - Valuation Overstatement..................58 1. The Grounds for Petitioners' Underpayments..........60 2. Concession of the Deficiency........................64 3. Section 6659(e).....................................68 MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION DAWSON, Judge: These cases were assigned to Special Trial Judge Norman H. Wol

ble for an addition to tax under section 6653(a) for 1980; (2) whether petitioners are liable for additions to tax under section 6653(a)(1) and (2) for tax years 1981, 1982, and 1983; and (3) whether petitioners are liable for additions to tax under section 6659. Petitioners were residents of Henderson, Nevada, when the petition was filed in this case. Petitioner Kenneth Dawson (hereinafter referred to as petitioner) is an attorney engaged in the private practice of law, primarily insurance defe

Section 6659--Valuation Overstatement...................62 1. The Grounds for Petitioners' Underpayments.........64 2. Concession of the Deficiency.......................69 3. Section 6659(e)....................................73 - 3 - D. Petitioners' Motions For Leave To File Motion For Decision Ordering Relief From the Negligence Penalty and the

Section 6659--Valuation Overstatement....................69 1. The Grounds for Petitioners' Underpayments..........71 2. Concession of the Deficiency........................76 3. Section 6659(e).....................................79 C. Petitioners' Motions For Leave To File Motion For Decision Ordering Relief From the Negligence Penalty and the Pe

Section 6659--Valuation Overstatement....................69 1. The Grounds for Petitioners' Underpayments..........71 2. Concession of the Deficiency........................76 3. Section 6659(e).....................................79 C. Petitioners' Motions For Leave To File Motion For Decision Ordering Relief From the Negligence Penalty and the Pe

Section 6659--Valuation Overstatement....................69 1. The Grounds for Petitioners' Underpayments..........71 2. Concession of the Deficiency........................76 3. Section 6659(e).....................................79 C. Petitioners' Motions For Leave To File Motion For Decision Ordering Relief From the Negligence Penalty and the Pe

In a notice of deficiency, respondent determined a deficiency in the 1981 joint Federal income taxes of petitioners Stone in the amount of $52,576 and additions to tax for that year in the amount of $15,773 under section 6659 for valuation overstatement, in the amount of $2,629 under section 6653(a)(1) for negligence, and under section 6653(a)(2) in an amount equal to 50 percent of the interest due on the underpayment attributable to negligence.

Section 6659--Valuation Overstatement....................53 1. The Grounds for Petitioners' Underpayments..........54 2. Concession of the Deficiencies......................59 3. Section 6659(e).....................................62 C. Petitioners' Motion For Leave To File Motion For Decision Ordering Relief From the Negligence Penalty and the Pen

21(c).3 In an amendment to answer, respondent asserted the following: For taxable years 1978 and 1979, additions to tax for negligence under section 6653(a); for taxable years 1978, 1979, and 1981, additions to tax for valuation overstatement under section 6659; and for taxable year 1981, additions to tax under section 6653(a)(1) for negligence and under section 6653(a)(2) in an amount equal to 50 percent of the interest due on the underpayment attributable to negligence.4 In a notice of deficie

Section 6659--Valuation Overstatement....................41 MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION DAWSON, Judge: This case was assigned to Special Trial Judge Norman H. Wolfe pursuant to the provisions of section 7443A(b)(4) and Rules 180, 181, and 183. All section references are to the Internal Revenue Code in effect for the tax years in issue,

Section 6659--Valuation Overstatement....................58 1. The Grounds for Petitioners' Underpayments..........59 2. Concession of the Deficiencies......................64 3. Section 6659(e).....................................68 C. Petitioners' Motions For Leave To File Motion For Decision Ordering Relief From the Negligence Penalty and the Pe

In a notice of deficiency, respondent determined a deficiency in the 1981 joint Federal income taxes of petitioners Stone in the amount of $52,576 and additions to tax for that year in the amount of $15,773 under section 6659 for valuation overstatement, in the amount of $2,629 under section 6653(a)(1) for negligence, and under section 6653(a)(2) in an amount equal to 50 percent of the interest due on the underpayment attributable to negligence.

Section 6659--Valuation Overstatement...................58 1. The Grounds for Petitioners' Underpayments.........60 2. Concession of the Deficiency.......................64 3. Section 6659(e)....................................68 C. Petitioners' Motions For Leave To File Motion for Decision Ordering Relief From the Negligence Penalty and the Penalt

Section 6659--Valuation Overstatement...................62 1. The Grounds for Petitioners' Underpayments.........64 2. Concession of the Deficiency.......................69 3. Section 6659(e)....................................73 - 3 - D. Petitioners' Motions For Leave To File Motion For Decision Ordering Relief From the Negligence Penalty and the

ORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION JACOBS, Judge: Respondent determined the following additions to petitioners' Federal income taxes in two notices of deficiency, both dated March 3, 1994: -2- Additions to Tax Year Sec. 6653(a)(1) Sec. 6653(a)(2) Sec. 6659 1982 $789 $18,278 $4,732 1983 540 10,545 3,242 Following a concession by respondent,1 the issues for decision are: (1) Whether Hyman S. Zfass (petitioner) is liable for additions to tax under section 6653(a)(1) and (2) for 1982 and 1983, and

Section 6659--Valuation Overstatement....................58 1. The Grounds for Petitioners' Underpayments..........59 2. Concession of the Deficiencies......................64 3. Section 6659(e).....................................68 C. Petitioners' Motions For Leave To File Motion For Decision Ordering Relief From the Negligence Penalty and the Pe

Section 6659--Valuation Overstatement...................50 1. Concession of the Deficiency.......................51 2. Section 6659(e)....................................55 MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION DAWSON, Judge: These cases were assigned to Special Trial Judge Norman H. Wolfe pursuant to the provisions of section 7443A(b)(4) and Rul

Section 6659--Valuation Overstatement...................62 1. The Grounds for Petitioners' Underpayments.........64 2. Concession of the Deficiency.......................69 3. Section 6659(e)....................................73 - 3 - D. Petitioners' Motions For Leave To File Motion For Decision Ordering Relief From the Negligence Penalty and the

Section 6659--Valuation Overstatement...................50 1. Concession of the Deficiency.......................51 2. Section 6659(e)....................................55 MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION DAWSON, Judge: These cases were assigned to Special Trial Judge Norman H. Wolfe pursuant to the provisions of section 7443A(b)(4) and Rul

Section 6659--Valuation Overstatement....................53 1. The Grounds for Petitioners' Underpayments..........54 2. Concession of the Deficiencies......................59 3. Section 6659(e).....................................62 C. Petitioners' Motion For Leave To File Motion For Decision Ordering Relief From the Negligence Penalty and the Pen

Provizer case. In notices of deficiency, respondent determined the following deficiencies in and additions to petitioners' Federal income taxes for taxable year 1981: Additions to Tax Docket No. Petitioner Deficiency Sec. 6653(a)(1) Sec. 6653(a)(2) Sec. 6659 9915-86 Peter and Ursula Reimann $43,025.11 --- --- $8,873.10 35003-86 Edward Brodie and Estate of Alana Brodie 22,711.72 --- --- 7,944.52 3398-92 Marvin and Suzanne Yarnell 165,899.00 $7,716 1 49,770.00 13892-92 Philip and Roberta Yarnell 1

31, 1989, respondent determined a deficiency in petitioners' joint 1981 Federal income tax in the amount of $109,168.19 (in addition to $29,995 previously assessed as a deficiency) and additions to tax for that year in the amount of $41,748.95 under section 6659 for valuation overstatement, in the amount of $6,958 under section 6653(a)(1) for negligence, and under section 6653(a)(2) in an amount equal to 50 percent of the interest due on the underpayment attributable to negligence.2 Respondent a

(2) Whether petitioner is liable for additions to tax for: (a) Negligence under section 6653(a) for 1989; (b) valuation overstatement under section 6659 for 1989; (c) substantial understatement under section 6661 in the alternative to section 6659 for 1989; and (d) an accuracy related penalty under section 6662(h) for gross valuation misstatement, or, in the alternative, under section 6662(a).

In a notice of deficiency, respondent determined a deficiency in petitioners' joint 1981 Federal income taxes in the amount of $83,294, and additions to tax for that year in the amount of $21,296 under section 6659 for valuation overstatement, in the amount of $4,165 under section 6653(a)(1) for negligence, and under section 6653(a)(2) in an amount equal to 50 percent of the interest due on the underpayment attributable to negligence.

Respondent also claimed therein that petitioners had an underpayment of tax on their 1981 return attributable to a valuation overstatement and asserted an addition to tax under section 6659 in an amount equal to 30 percent of the underpayment attributable to valuation overstatement.

INION LARO, Judge: This case was submitted to the Court fully stipulated under Rule 122. Respondent determined that petitioners were liable for $21, $3,099, and $578 additions to their Federal income tax for 1979, 1980, and 1981, respectively, under section 6659. The additions to tax stem from respondent’s - 2 - determination that petitioners were not entitled to a 1982 investment tax credit that they claimed was attributable to their interest in a limited partnership, Catamount Associates (Cata

In analyzing the gross valuation misstatement penalty statute (section 6659 at the time), the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in Todd II stated that “Unfortunately, none of the formal legislative history provides a method for calculating whether a given tax underpayment is attributable to a valuation overstatement.” Todd II, 862 F.2d at 542.

additions to tax under sec. 6653(a)(1) and (2), I.R.C., are sustained. Held, further, the remittance which was repaid by R is excluded from R’s computations of the addition to tax under sec. 6653(a)(2), I.R.C. Held further, the addition to tax under sec. 6659, I.R.C., is sustained. Joy L. Hall, Martin J. Horwitz, and John A. Freeman, for petitioner Daniel C. Greer Kenton Ball, for petitioner Winnie L. Greer. Aubrey C. Brown and Denise A. Diloreto, for respondent. MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND

In Gainer and Todd, the taxpayers made valuation overstatements of certain property and claimed depreciation 191(...continued) 6659 and consolidated the various accuracy-related penalties into sec. 6662, carrying over the same essential language as sec. 6659. In the Omnibus Reconciliation Act of 1990, Pub. L. 101- 508, sec. 11312, 104 Stat. 1388-454 to 1388-455, Congress amended sec. 6662, changing, inter alia, the phrase “valuation overstatement” to refer to “valuation misstatement”. 192 Forme

We continue to adhere to that view.6 The majority cites a number of cases decided under the abuse of discretion standard, stating that "[i]n none of these types of cases have we held * * * that we are limited to the administrative record." Majority op. p. 26 (emphasis added). In three of the types of cases to which the majority alludes (involving section 482 reallocations, section 4 6 "clear reflection of income" determinations, and waivers of the former section 6659 addition to tax), the inappl

tement” exists “if the value of any property, or the adjusted basis of any property, claimed on any return is 150 percent or more of the amount determined to be the correct amount”. Sec. 6659(c)(1). The addition to tax applies only if 5References to sec. 6659 are to sec. 6659 as in effect with respect to returns that were filed after Dec. 31, 1981, and that were due before Jan. 1, 1990. See Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981, Pub. L. 97-34, sec. 722(a), 95 Stat. 341; OBRA sec. 7721, 103 Stat. 239

tement” exists “if the value of any property, or the adjusted basis of any property, claimed on any return is 150 percent or more of the amount determined to be the correct amount”. Sec. 6659(c)(1). The addition to tax applies only if 5References to sec. 6659 are to sec. 6659 as in effect with respect to returns that were filed after Dec. 31, 1981, and that were due before Jan. 1, 1990. See Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981, Pub. L. 97-34, sec. 722(a), 95 Stat. 341; OBRA sec. 7721, 103 Stat. 239

After concessions,2 we must decide: (1) Whether petitioner is entitled to a deduction of $18,956 related to his limited partnership interest in Sav-Fuel Associates for the taxable year 1981; (2) whether petitioner is liable for an addition to tax pursuant to section 6659 of $2,843.55 for the taxable year 1981; and (3) whether petitioner is liable for the increased rate of interest under section 6621(d).

OPINION OF THE SPECIAL TRIAL JUDGE WOLFE, Special Trial Judge: In a so-called affected items notice of deficiency, respondent determined additions to tax with respect to petitioners’ 1982 Federal income tax of $6,006 under section 6659 for valuation overstatement, $1,237 under section 6653(a)(1) for negligence, and under section 6653(a)(2) in an amount equal to 50 percent of the interest due on $24,747, the amount of the underpayment attributable to negligence.

OPINION OF THE SPECIAL TRIAL JUDGE WOLFE, Special Trial Judge: In a so-called affected items notice of deficiency, respondent determined additions to tax with respect to petitioner’s 1982 Federal income tax of $6,115 under section 6659 for valuation overstatement, $1,260 under section 6653(a)(1) for negligence, and under section 6653(a)(2) in an amount equal to 50 percent of the interest due on $25,205, the amount of the underpayment attributable to negligence.

OPINION OF THE SPECIAL TRIAL JUDGE WOLFE, Special Trial Judge: In a so-called affected items notice of deficiency, respondent determined additions to tax with respect to petitioners’ 1982 Federal income tax of $6,116 under section 6659 for valuation overstatement, $1,495 under section 6653(a)(1) for negligence, and under section 6653(a)(2) in an amount equal to 50 percent of the interest due on $29,894, the amount of the underpayment attributable to negligence.

Trial Judge: In a so-called affected items notice of deficiency, respondent determined petitioner is liable for additions to tax of $1,080 under section 6653(a)(1), 50 percent of the interest due on $21,604 under section 6653(a)(2), and $5,001 under section 6659 for the 1982 taxable year.1 1 Unless otherwise indicated, section references are to the (continued...) - 2 - Petitioner concedes that he is liable for an addition to tax of $5,001 pursuant to section 6659 for an underpayment of tax attri

ers are so liable. FINDINGS OF FACT Some of the facts have been stipulated, and they are so found. The stipulated facts and the attached exhibits are 1Petitioners concede that for each of the years in issue they are liable for additions to tax under sec. 6659 for underpayments of tax attributable to valuation overstatements in the amounts determined by respondent. Also, petitioners have abandoned their argument that assessment and collection of the additions to tax for the years in issue are bar

tsegen v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1997-314; see also Ulanoff v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1999-170. Petitioners therefore concede (in par. 1. of the stipulation of facts) that they are liable for the addition to tax for valuation overstatement under sec. 6659 for 1982. To the extent that petitioners’ concession may not extend to sec. 6659(e), and assuming arguendo that petitioners properly raised an issue under that section, then we decide such issue in respondent’s favor. See, e.g., Addington v

OPINION OF THE SPECIAL TRIAL JUDGE ARMEN, Special Trial Judge: Respondent determined a deficiency with respect to petitioners' Federal income tax for 1981 in the amount of $26,639, as well as additions to tax under section 6659 in the amount of $7,992, under section 6653(a)(1) in the amount of $1,344, and under section 6653(a)(2) in the amount of 50 percent of the portion of the underpayment that is attributable to negligence.

in these cases were overvalued. See Gottsecen v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1997-314; see also Ulanoff v. Cammissioner, T.C. Memo. 1999-170. Petitioners therefore concede • that they are liable for the addition to tax for valuation overstatement under sec. 6659 for 1982. Further, petitioners do not contest (other than on ccnstitutional grounds) that they are liable for additional interest under sec. 6621(c) with respect to the underpayment for 1982. See sec. 6621(c)(3)(A)(i), (v); Ulanoff v. Commi

d in these cases were overvalued. See Gottsegen v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1997-314; see also Ulanoff v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1999-170. Petitioners therefore concede that they are liable for the addition to tax for valuation overstatement under sec. 6659 for 1982. Further, petitioners do not contest (other than on constitutional grounds) that they are liable for additional interest under sec. 6621(c) with respect to the underpayment for 1982. See sec. 6621(c)(3)(A)(i), (v); Ulanoff v. Commi

In the notice, respondent determined that petitioners were liable for (1) additions to tax for negligence under section 6653(a)(1) and (a)(2) in the amounts of $492 and 50 percent of the interest due on $9,835, respectively, and (2) an addition to tax for valuation overstatement under section 6659 in the amount of $2,436.

In the notice, respondent determined that petitioner was liable for (1) additions to tax for negligence under section 6653(a)(1) and (a)(2) in the amounts of $620 and 50 percent of the interest due on $12,395, respectively, and (2) an addition to tax for valuation overstatement under section 6659 in the amount of $3,014.

(4) Whether petitioner is liable for the addition to tax under section 6659 for an underpayment of tax attributable to a valuation overstatement for each of the years in issue.

(4) Whether petitioner is liable for the addition to tax under section 6659 for an underpayment of tax attributable to a valuation overstatement for each of the years in issue.

respondent (1) increased the deficiency by $367,776 (resulting in a total deficiency of $612,624), (2) asserted additions to tax pursuant to (a) section 6653(b)(1) in the amount of 50 percent of the underpayment, (b) section 6653(b)(2) in the amount of 50 percent of the interest payable with respect to the deficiency attributable to fraud, and (c) section 6659 in the amount of $94,950, and (3) asserted increased interest pursuant to section 6621(d).

e. All Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure. - 2 - Respondent determined additions to petitioner's Federal income tax for the years 1979 through 1982 as follows: Additions to Tax Year Sec. 6653(a)(1) Sec. 6653(a)(2)1 Sec. 6659 1979 $211 applies $1,266 1980 189 applies 1,137 1981 22 applies 131 1982 221 applies 742 1. Fifty percent of the interest due on the portion of the underpayment attributable to negligence for the years 1979, 1980, 1981, and 1982. In a Stipul

Respondent also asserted an addition to tax for 1981 under section 6659 for valuation overstatement in the amount of $6,645.

s, for respondent. MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION WRIGHT, Judge: Respondent determined the following deficiencies in and additions to petitioner’s Federal income taxes: - 2 - Additions to Tax Year Deficiency Sec. 6653(a)(1) Sec. 6653(a)(2) Sec. 6659 Sec. 6661 1980 $28,885 $1,444.25 --- --- --- 1981 37,414 1,870.70 1 $11,224.20 1982 57,560 2,878.00 2 $5,756.00 1 50% of the interest due on $37,414 2 50% of the interest due on $57,560 After concessions,1 the issue for decision is whether p

s, for respondent. MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION WRIGHT, Judge: Respondent determined the following deficiencies in and additions to petitioner’s Federal income taxes: - 2 - Additions to Tax Year Deficiency Sec. 6653(a)(1) Sec. 6653(a)(2) Sec. 6659 Sec. 6661 1980 $28,885 $1,444.25 --- --- --- 1981 37,414 1,870.70 1 $11,224.20 1982 57,560 2,878.00 2 $5,756.00 1 50% of the interest due on $37,414 2 50% of the interest due on $57,560 After concessions,1 the issue for decision is whether p

G. Kokis and Lewis J. Abrahams, for respondent. MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION BEGHE, Judge: Respondent determined the following deficiencies and additions to tax in petitioners' Federal income taxes: - 2 - Addition to Tax Year Deficiency Sec. 6659 1985 $5,061 $1,518 1986 6,783 2,035 1987 6,287 1,886 1988 6,118 1,835 The issues for decision are: (1) The fair market value of the movie memorabilia (the collection) donated by Gerald Leibowitz (petitioner) to the American Museum of the Mov

fpauir, pro se. Julie M.T. Foster, for respondent. MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION COLVIN, Judge: Respondent determined deficiencies in petitioners' income tax and additions to tax as follows: Additions to Tax Year Deficiency Sec. 6653(a)(1) Sec. 6659 1980 $2,924 $146 $877 1981 1,969 98 591 1982 2,381 119 714 1983 1,940 97 582 - 2 - Respondent also determined that petitioners are liable for increased interest under section 6621(c) for the portion of the underpayment attributable to tax-m

MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION JACOBS, Judge: Respondent determined a $7,517 deficiency in petitioners’ 1984 Federal income tax, a $2,255 addition to tax for valuation overstatement pursuant to section 6659, and additional interest pursuant to section 6621(c).1 As an alternative to the 1 Pursuant to the Tax Reform Act of 1986, Pub.

MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION WRIGHT, Judge: For taxable year 1984, respondent determined a deficiency in petitioner’s Federal income tax in the amount of $4,737 and additions to tax under section 6653(a)(1) in the amount of $236.85, under section 6653(a)(2) for 50 percent of the interest due on $4,737, and under section 6659 in the amount of $459.30, and for increased interest under section 6621(c).

In a notice of deficiency, respondent determined deficiencies in petitioner's 1981 and 1982 Federal income taxes in the respective amounts of $13,770 and $4,502, and an addition to tax for 1981 in the amount of $2,848.33 under section 6659 for valuation overstatement.

te under section 6621(c).2 In a notice of deficiency, respondent determined the following deficiencies in and additions to Sorey's Federal income taxes: Increased Interest Additions to Tax Year Deficiency Sec. 6621(c) Sec. 6653(a)(1) Sec. 6653(a)(2) Sec. 6659 1978 $10,022 1 --- --- $3,006.60 1979 382 --- --- --- 114.60 1981 11,737 1 $586.85 2 3,521.10 1120 percent of the interest payable under sec. 6601 with respect to any substantial underpayment attributable to tax-motivated transactions. 250

te under section 6621(c).2 In a notice of deficiency, respondent determined the following deficiencies in and additions to Sorey's Federal income taxes: Increased Interest Additions to Tax Year Deficiency Sec. 6621(c) Sec. 6653(a)(1) Sec. 6653(a)(2) Sec. 6659 1978 $10,022 1 --- --- $3,006.60 1979 382 --- --- --- 114.60 1981 11,737 1 $586.85 2 3,521.10 1120 percent of the interest payable under sec. 6601 with respect to any substantial underpayment attributable to tax-motivated transactions. 250

1991) (applying the since-repealed section 6659 penalty for valuation overstatements),4 4In the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1989, Pub.

The basis claimed by participating taxpayers thus resulted in a valuation overstatement for purposes ofsection 6659 ofprior law.

y, after adjusting for failure to place the container in service, was no different from 2(...continued) matter ofcourse. See Golsen v. Commissioner, 54 T.C. 742 (1970), aff'd, 445 F.2d 985 (10th Cir. 1971). 3The Court ofAppeals in Gainer interpreted sec. 6659, now repealed, which also imposed a penalty on taxpayers who underpaid their taxes by overvaluing an asset. -8- [*8] his liability after adjusting for any overvaluation. E Therefore, no penalty could apply. E We now look to Keller. The part

ributed property.” On appeal, the McMurrays do not address section 6659(f)(2), nor does our review of the record indicate any additional investigation by the McMurrays into the value of the property. Thus, we affirm the imposition of penalties under section 6659. The $7,445 million value of the servitude claimed as a charitable contribution deduction on the 1997 Form 1065 was based on the Cohen appraisal, which respondent concedes is a qualified appraisal by a qualified appraiser. As stated infr

970 (1986) (finding that section 6659, the predecessor of section 6662(a), applies where the transaction lacked economic substance and the underpayment was due to the disallowed deductions and credits caused by a finding of a zero adjusted basis).

continued) term "tax Êotivated trân'saction" means- (i)cany valuation overstatement (within the meaning of section 6659 (c) ) , (ii) in loss disailowed by reason of section 465 (a) and any credit disallowed under 46 (c) (8) (iii) any straddle (as defined in section 1092 (c) wiùhout regard to subsections (d) and (e) of section 1092), and (iv) any use of an accounting method specified in,regulations prescribed by the Secretary as a use which may result in a substantial distortion of income for any

is Though the Third Circuit was-construing the Internal Revenue Code of 1939, Congress wrote section 6659 in 1954 to (continued .

We nevertheless held that we had jurisdiction under section 6659 (a near identical predecessor to section 6665), because the addition to tax was “attributable to a deficiency.” Id.

To reflect the foregoing, Decision will be entered for respondent except as to the section 6659 addition to tax for 1983 .

g the power to * * * administer, manage, conduct, direct, and supervise the execution and application of the internal revenue laws”). See sec. 482; Dolese v. Commissioner, 82 T.C. 830, 838 (1984), affd. 811 F.2d 543, 546 (10th Cir. 1987). See former sec. 6659(e); Krause v. Commissioner, 99 T.C. 132, 179 (1992), affd. sub nom. Hildebrand v. Commissioner, 28 F.3d 1024 (10th Cir. 1994). See secs. 446(b), 471(a); Thor Power Tool Co. v. Commissioner, 439 U.S. 522, 532 (1979); see also Hernandez-Corde

132, 179 (1992) (based in part on the Commissioner's expert's testimony that taxpayers were influenced by energy crisis to invest in energy partnerships, failure to waive the addition to tax for underpayment attributable to valuation overstatement under section 6659(e) was an abuse of discretion), affd .

As support, petitioner points to a statement in the report prepared by the staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation, which accompanied the enactment of section 6659, the predecessor to section 6662(b)(3) : "The Congress believed that a specific penalty was needed to deal with various problems related to the valuation of property ." Staff of Joint Comm .

t of tax would be the same because the container was not placed in service. Thus, Gainer's actual tax liability, after adjusting for failure to place the container in service, was no different from 42 Sec. 6662(b)(3), like its predecessor provision (sec. 6659) considered in Gainer, imposes an addition to tax on underpayments "attributable to" any "substantial valuation misstatement" (referred to, in sec. 6659, as "a valuation overstatement"). - 71 - his liability after adjusting for any overvalu

t of tax would be the same because the container was not placed in service. Thus, Gainer's actual tax liability, after adjusting for failure to place the container in service, was no different from 42 Sec. 6662(b)(3), like its predecessor provision (sec. 6659) considered in Gainer, imposes an addition to tax on underpayments "attributable to" any "substantial valuation misstatement" (referred to, in sec. 6659, as "a valuation overstatement"). - 71 - his liability after adjusting for any overvalu

t of tax would be the same because the container was not placed in service. Thus, Gainer's actual tax liability, after adjusting for failure to place the container in service, was no different from 42 Sec. 6662(b)(3), like its predecessor provision (sec. 6659) considered in Gainer, imposes an addition to tax on underpayments "attributable to" any "substantial valuation misstatement" (referred to, in sec. 6659, as "a valuation overstatement"). - 71 - his liability after adjusting for any overvalu

Tax-motivated transactions include any valuation overstatements within the meaning of former section 6659(c) or any sham or fraudulent transaction .

t of tax would be the same because the container was not placed in service. Thus, Gainer's actual tax liability, after adjusting for failure to place the container in service, was no different from 42 Sec. 6662(b)(3), like its predecessor provision (sec. 6659) considered in Gainer, imposes an addition to tax on underpayments "attributable to" any "substantial valuation misstatement" (referred to, in sec. 6659, as "a valuation overstatement"). - 71 - his liability after adjusting for any overvalu

t of tax would be the same because the container was not placed in service. Thus, Gainer's actual tax liability, after adjusting for failure to place the container in service, was no different from 42 Sec. 6662(b)(3), like its predecessor provision (sec. 6659) considered in Gainer, imposes an addition to tax on underpayments "attributable to" any "substantial valuation misstatement" (referred to, in sec. 6659, as "a valuation overstatement"). - 71 - his liability after adjusting for any overvalu

t of tax would be the same because the container was not placed in service. Thus, Gainer's actual tax liability, after adjusting for failure to place the container in service, was no different from 42 Sec. 6662(b)(3), like its predecessor provision (sec. 6659) considered in Gainer, imposes an addition to tax on underpayments "attributable to" any "substantial valuation misstatement" (referred to, in sec. 6659, as "a valuation overstatement"). - 71 - his liability after adjusting for any overvalu

t of tax would be the same because the container was not placed in service. Thus, Gainer's actual tax liability, after adjusting for failure to place the container in service, was no different from 42 Sec. 6662(b)(3), like its predecessor provision (sec. 6659) considered in Gainer, imposes an addition to tax on underpayments "attributable to" any "substantial valuation misstatement" (referred to, in sec. 6659, as "a valuation overstatement"). - 71 - his liability after adjusting for any overvalu

132, 179 (1992) (based in part on the Commissioner’s expert’s testimony that taxpayers were influenced by energy crisis to invest in energy partnerships, failure to waive the addition to tax for underpayment attributable to valuation overstatement under section 6659(e) was an abuse of discretion), affd.

As support, petitioner points to a statement in the report prepared by the staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation, which accompanied the enactment of section 6659, the predecessor to section 6662(b)(3): “The Congress believed that a specific penalty was needed to deal with various problems related to the valuation of property.” Staff of Joint Comm, on Taxation, General Explanation of the Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981, at 332 (J.

6661 Sec. 6662 1978 $476,999.00 -- -- -- -- 1979 183,909.37 $9,190.47 -- -- -- 1980 454,396.00 22,720.00 -- -- -- 1981 340,578.00 17,029.00 $42,682 -- -- 1982 2,086,913.00 104,346.00 -- $208,691.00 -- 1983 1,150,652.00 57,532.60 -- 287,663.00 -- 1984 3,825,078.00 191,254.00 -- 949,211.00 -- 1986 897,224.00 44,861.60 -- 223,666.00 --

6661 Sec. 6662 1978 $476,999.00 -- -- -- -- 1979 183,909.37 $9,190.47 -- -- -- 1980 454,396.00 22,720.00 -- -- -- 1981 340,578.00 17,029.00 $42,682 -- -- 1982 2,086,913.00 104,346.00 -- $208,691.00 -- 1983 1,150,652.00 57,532.60 -- 287,663.00 -- 1984 3,825,078.00 191,254.00 -- 949,211.00 -- 1986 897,224.00 44,861.60 -- 223,666.00 --

6661 Sec. 6662 1978 $476,999.00 -- -- -- -- 1979 183,909.37 $9,190.47 -- -- -- 1980 454,396.00 22,720.00 -- -- -- 1981 340,578.00 17,029.00 $42,682 -- -- 1982 2,086,913.00 104,346.00 -- $208,691.00 -- 1983 1,150,652.00 57,532.60 -- 287,663.00 -- 1984 3,825,078.00 191,254.00 -- 949,211.00 -- 1986 897,224.00 44,861.60 -- 223,666.00 --

A tax- motivated transaction includes any valuation overstatement within the meaning of section 6659(c), and such a valuation overstatement exists, among other situations, if the adjusted basis of property claimed on any return exceeds 150 percent of the correct amount of basis.

6661 Sec. 6662 1978 $476,999.00 -- -- -- -- 1979 183,909.37 $9,190.47 -- -- -- 1980 454,396.00 22,720.00 -- -- -- 1981 340,578.00 17,029.00 $42,682 -- -- 1982 2,086,913.00 104,346.00 -- $208,691.00 -- 1983 1,150,652.00 57,532.60 -- 287,663.00 -- 1984 3,825,078.00 191,254.00 -- 949,211.00 -- 1986 897,224.00 44,861.60 -- 223,666.00 --

A tax- motivated transaction includes any valuation overstatement within the meaning of section 6659(c), and such a valuation overstatement exists, among other situations, if the adjusted basis of property claimed on any return exceeds 150 percent of the correct amount of basis.

6661 Sec. 6662 1978 $476,999.00 -- -- -- -- 1979 183,909.37 $9,190.47 -- -- -- 1980 454,396.00 22,720.00 -- -- -- 1981 340,578.00 17,029.00 $42,682 -- -- 1982 2,086,913.00 104,346.00 -- $208,691.00 -- 1983 1,150,652.00 57,532.60 -- 287,663.00 -- 1984 3,825,078.00 191,254.00 -- 949,211.00 -- 1986 897,224.00 44,861.60 -- 223,666.00 --

A tax- motivated transaction includes any valuation overstatement within the meaning of section 6659(c), and such a valuation overstatement exists, among other situations, if the adjusted basis of property claimed on any return exceeds 150 percent of the correct amount of basis.

A tax- motivated transaction includes any valuation overstatement within the meaning of section 6659(c), and such a valuation overstatement exists, among other situations, if the adjusted basis of property claimed on any return exceeds 150 percent of the correct amount of basis.

ency and consented to an extension of the assessment date. On June 10, 1987, respondent assessed the following amounts as - 6 - determined in the notice of deficiency with respect to 1980-82: Additions to tax and increased interest Year Deficiency Sec. 6659 Sec. 6661 Sec. 6621(d) 1980 $27,920 -- -- $33,970 1981 $45,294 $13,588 -- $67,177 1982 $70,920 $15,918 $4,465 $53,749 With respect to 1982, respondent subsequently abated the additions to tax under sections 6659 and 6661. The Hendrickses bega

132, 179 (1992) (based in part on the Commissioner’s expert’s testimony that taxpayers were influenced by energy crisis to invest in energy partnerships, failure to waive the addition to tax for underpayment attributable to valuation overstatement under section 6659(e) was an abuse of discretion), affd.

~ 4 - decision in this case are, with respect to petitioner alone: (1) Whether petitioner is liable for the section 6653 addition to tax for negligence in each year in issue; (2) whether petitioner is liable for the section 6659 addition to tax for valuation overstatements in each year; (3) whether petitioner is liable for the increased rate of interest under section 6621(c) that is applied with respect to tax motivated transactions; and (4) whether petitioner is entitled to relief from joint an

132, 179 (1992) (based in part on the Commissioner’s expert’s testimony that taxpayers were influenced by energy crisis to invest in energy partnerships, failure to waive the addition to tax for underpayment attributable to valuation overstatement under section 6659(e) was an abuse of discretion), affd.

Todd, Gainer, and McCrary all held that the section 6659 addition to tax for valuation overstatement was inapplicable where the taxpayer conceded that no deductions or credits were allowable, due to property not having been placed in service.

Todd, Gainer, and McCrary all held that the section 6659 addition to tax for valuation overstatement was inapplicable where the taxpayer conceded that no deductions or credits were allowable, due to property not having been placed in service.

Todd, Gainer, and McCrary all held that the section 6659 addition to tax for valuation overstatement was inapplicable where the taxpayer conceded that no deductions or credits were allowable, due to property not having been placed in service.

Todd, Gainer, and McCrary all held that the section 6659 addition to tax for valuation overstatement was inapplicable where the taxpayer conceded that no deductions or credits were allowable, due to property not having been placed in service.

Todd, Gainer, and McCrary all held that the section 6659 addition to tax for valuation overstatement was inapplicable where the taxpayer conceded that no deductions or credits were allowable, due to property not having been placed in service.

Todd, Gainer, and McCrary all held that the section 6659 addition to tax for valuation overstatement was inapplicable where the taxpayer conceded that no deductions or credits were allowable, due to property not having been placed in service.

Todd, Gainer, and McCrary all held that the section 6659 addition to tax for valuation overstatement was inapplicable where the taxpayer conceded that no deductions or credits were allowable, due to property not having been placed in service.

Todd, Gainer, and McCrary all held that the section 6659 addition to tax for valuation overstatement was inapplicable where the taxpayer conceded that no deductions or credits were allowable, due to property not having been placed in service.

Todd, Gainer, and McCrary all held that the section 6659 addition to tax for valuation overstatement was inapplicable where the taxpayer conceded that no deductions or credits were allowable, due to property not having been placed in service.

Todd, Gainer, and McCrary all held that the section 6659 addition to tax for valuation overstatement was inapplicable where the taxpayer conceded that no deductions or credits were allowable, due to property not having been placed in service.

Todd, Gainer, and McCrary all held that the section 6659 addition to tax for valuation overstatement was inapplicable where the taxpayer conceded that no deductions or credits were allowable, due to property not having been placed in service.

Todd, Gainer, and McCrary all held that the section 6659 addition to tax for valuation overstatement was inapplicable where the taxpayer conceded that no deductions or credits were allowable, due to property not having been placed in service.

Todd, Gainer, and McCrary all held that the section 6659 addition to tax for valuation overstatement was inapplicable where the taxpayer conceded that no deductions or credits were allowable, due to property not having been placed in service.

Todd, Gainer, and McCrary all held that the section 6659 addition to tax for valuation overstatement was inapplicable where the taxpayer conceded that no deductions or credits were allowable, due to property not having been placed in service.

Todd, Gainer, and McCrary all held that the section 6659 addition to tax for valuation overstatement was inapplicable where the taxpayer conceded that no deductions or credits were allowable, due to property not having been placed in service.

Todd, Gainer, and McCrary all held that the section 6659 addition to tax for valuation overstatement was inapplicable where the taxpayer conceded that no deductions or credits were allowable, due to property not having been placed in service.

Todd, Gainer, and McCrary all held that the section 6659 addition to tax for valuation overstatement was inapplicable where the taxpayer conceded that no deductions or credits were allowable, due to property not having been placed in service.

sec. 6654(a) addition to tax if petitioner had filed a valid income tax return. Sec. 6665(b). See also Estate of DiRezza v. Commissioner, 78 T.C. 19 (1982), for a discussion of the legislative history of sec. 6665(b)’s identical predecessor, former sec. 6659. In any event, it’s improper for respondent to include in the notice of deficiency (unless in the alternative) both a sec. 6654(a) addition for failure to pay estimated tax and a sec. 6662 accuracy-related penalty. The sec. 6662 penalty app

Thus, the determination of whether we have jurisdiction over any portion of the assessed addition to tax turns on whether a deficiency within the meaning of section 6211 exists in this case.

4-92. Based on the decision in that case, respondent issued a notice of deficiency for so- called affected items to petitioner for the additions to tax - 6 - under section 6653(a) for negligence and the valuation overstatement addition to tax under section 6659. Discussion This case is one of many cases involving additions to tax resulting from the plastics recycling scheme. See, e.g., Grelsamer v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1996-399, affd. without published opinion sub nom. Morgan v. Commissioner

g underpayments in income tax are substantial underpayments attributable to tax-motivated transactions, subject to the increased rate of interest established under sec. 6621(c). Petitioners stipulate that they are liable for an addition to tax under sec. 6659 for valuation overstatement for 1981 of $17,253. Petitioners also concede that the assessment period for 1981 with regard to the amount of any deficiency that resulted from any adjustment to items from SAB was extended pursuant to sec. 6501

ION SWIFT, Judge: In these consolidated cases, respondent determined deficiencies in petitioners’ Federal income taxes and additions to tax as follows: - 2 - Additions to Tax Year Deficiency Sec. 6621(c) Sec. 6653(a) Sec. 6653(a)(1) Sec. 6653(a)(2) Sec. 6659 Patty K. and Alvin C. Copeland 1979 $197,476 * $10,054 -- -- -- 1980 203,319 * 9,927 -- -- -- 1981 164,065 * -- $22,462 ** $80,086 1982 170,990 * –- 24,323 ** 67,608 1983 127,523 -0- -- -0- -0- -0- Alvin C. Copeland 1985 $ 1,440 -0- -- -0- -

Judge: Respondent determined deficiencies in petitioners’ Federal income taxes, additions to taxes, and penalties for the taxable years and in the amounts set forth below: Additions to tax Year Deficiency Sec. Sec. 6651(a) 6653(a) Sec. 6653(a)(1)(B) Sec. 6659 Sec. 6661 Additional interest sec. 6621(c) 1980 $3,917 --- --- --- --- --- 1981 17 1982 1,248 1983 11,334 $1,043 1984 1,196 1985 4,662 1986 8,068 139 1987 54,708 7,402 $2,760 $16,412 $13,677 1988 52,048 8,981 2,670 15,614 13,012 Penalties S

EMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION WELLS, Judge: Respondent determined deficiencies in, and additions to, petitioners' Federal income taxes, as follows: - 2 - Increased Additions to Tax Interest Year Deficiencies Sec. 6653(a)(1) Sec. 6653(a)(2) Sec. 6659 Sec. 6661 Sec. 6621(c) 1982 $38,858.88 $1,942.94 1 $10,118.45 2 3 1983 26,826.77 1,341.34 1 8,048.03 2 3 1984 40,618.76 2,030.94 1 12,185.63 2 3 150 percent of the interest due on the entire deficiency. 225 percent of the understatement of t

The additions to tax are for overvaluation under section 6659 and negligence under section 6653(a)(1) and (2).

In them, respondent determined that petitioners were liable for the addition to tax for overvaluation under section 6659 relating to their share of the Signature/Encoder disallowed credits in 1979 and 1982.

and 1982. Respondent timely mailed statutory notices of deficiency on October 14, 1986, determining income tax deficiencies and additions to tax for decedent's 1980, 1981, and 1982 taxable years, as follows: - 4 - Additions to Tax J.ear Deficiency Sec. 6659 Sec. 6653(a) Sec. 6653(a) (1) Sec. 6653(a) (2) 1980 $89,410 $26,768 $4,470 --- ___ 1981 . 36,601 10,980 --- $1,830 50% of the interest due on $36,601 1 1982 4,602 1,381 230 50% of the interest due on $4,602 Respondent also determined that, pu

t Rules of Practice and Procedure. Respondent determined additions to, and penalties on, the Federal income tax of petitioners for the taxable years 1987 through 1990 as follows: Additions to Tax Penalties Year Sec. 6653(a)(1)(A) Sec. 6653(a)(1)(B) Sec. 6659 Sec. 6661 Sec. 6662(a) 1987 $3,253 50 percent of the $6,284 $11,031 interest due on $65,053 1988 727 1,824 2,114 1989 $8,423 1990 19,293 The issues for decision are: 1. Whether to grant the parties' respective motions to amend their pleading

t for the years in issue. All Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure. Respondent determined additions to tax in petitioners' Federal income taxes as follows: - 22 - Additions to Tax Year Sec. 6653(a)(1) Sec. 6653(a)(2) Sec. 6659 1981 $587 * $3,523 1984 642 ** 3,854 * An amount equal to 50 percent of the interest due on $11,744. ** An amount equal to 50 percent of the interest due on $12,846. After concessions, the issues remaining for decision are: (1) Whether petit

fer were as follows: (1) The investor would be allowed a deduction for 50 percent of his cash invested in the year of investment; (2) no business or energy tax credits would be allowed; (3) the investor would concede the overvaluation penalty under section 6659 at the 30-percent rate; (4) the - 36 - investor would concede the section 6621(c) interest; (5) the Government would concede the additions to tax for negligence under section 6653(a)(1) and (2); (6) the Government would concede the additi

he Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure. Respondent determined additions to, and penalties on, the Federal income tax of petitioners for the taxable years 1987 through 1990 as follows: Additions to tax Sec. Year 6653(a)(1)(A) Sec. 6653(a)(1)(B) Sec. 6659 Sec. 6661 Penalties sec. 6662(a) 1987 $3,253 50 percent of the interest due on $65,053 $6,284 $11,031 1988 727 1,824 2,114 1989 $8,423 1990 19 293 The issues for decision are: (1) Whether to grant the parties’ respective motions to amend th

s in the present cases, was a sham because it lacked economic substance and a business purpose; - 25 - (3) upheld the additions to tax for negligence under section 6653(a)(1) and (2); (4) upheld the addition to tax for valuation overstatement under section 6659 because the underpayment of taxes was directly related to the overvaluation of the Sentinel EPE recyclers; and (5) held that losses and credits claimed with respect to the Clearwater Group partnership were attributable to tax-motivated tr

energy investment credits or any other tax benefits claimed on their tax returns for the taxable years in issue as a result of their participation in the Plastics Recycling Program. 2. The petitioners are liable for the additions to tax pursuant to I.R.C. section 6659 as set forth in the notice of deficiency. 3. The underpayments in income tax attributable to petitioners' participation in the Plastics Recycling Program are substantial underpayments attributable to tax motivated transactions, sub

For 1981 and 1982, respondent in these cases, on brief, has conceded the section 6659 additions to tax.

ome tax attributable to the investment credit and business energy investment credit claimed with respect to petitioners' participation in the Plastics Recycling Program are subject to the addition to tax for valuation overstatements determined under I.R.C. section 6659 using an applicable percentage of 30 percent. 3. The underpayments in income tax attributable to petitioners' participation in the Plastics Recycling Program are substantial underpayments attributable to tax motivated transactions

S OF FACT AND OPINION JACOBS, Judge: Respondent determined the following deficiencies in, additions to, and increased interest on petitioners' Federal income taxes: - 2 - Additions to Tax Year Deficiency Sec. 6653(a)(1) Sec. 6653(a)(2) Sec. 6621(c) Sec. 6659 1980 $ 480 $ 24 --- --- --- 1981 931 47 1 --- --- 1982 543 27 1 --- --- 1983 4,357 218 1 2 $1,121 1984 4,889 244 1 2 1,467 1 50 percent of the interest due on $931 for 1981, $543 for 1982, $3,735 for 1983, and $4,889 for 1984. 2 120 percent

- 2 - section 6653(a)(2) equal to 50 percent of the interest due on the deficiency, an addition to tax of $960 under section 6659, and increased interest under section 6621(c).

In the subsection "Additions to Tax - Penalties & Interest", the Memorandum explained in detail that the substantial - 5 - understatement penalty under section 6661 or the valuation overstatement penalty under section 6659 could apply to the proposed charitable contributions.

6659A 9/30/87 $61,816 -- -- $18,555 9/30/88 55,075 $22,679 $ 5,670 16,523 9/30/89 52,970 45,359 11,340 15,891 9/30/90 -- 45,359 11,340 -- Unless otherwise indicated, all section references are to the Internal Revenue Code in effect for the years in issue, and all Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure. After settl

OPINION OF THE SPECIAL TRIAL JUDGE WOLFE, Special Trial Judge: Respondent determined a deficiency in petitioners' 1981 joint Federal income tax in the amount of $27,751, plus additions to tax for that year in the amount of $8,325.30 under section 6659 for valuation overstatement, in the amount of $1,387.55 under section 6653(a)(1) for negligence, and under section 6653(a)(2) in an amount equal to 50 percent of the interest due on the underpayment attributable to negligence.1 Respondent also dete

ome tax attributable to the investment credit and business energy investment credit claimed with respect to petitioners' participation in the Plastics Recycling Program are subject to the addition to tax for valuation overstatements determined under I.R.C. section 6659 using an applicable percentage of 30 percent. 3. The underpayments in income tax attributable to petitioners' participation in the Plastics Recycling Program are substantial underpayments attributable to tax motivated transactions

s in the present cases, was a sham because it lacked economic substance and a business purpose; - 25 - (3) upheld the additions to tax for negligence under section 6653(a)(1) and (2); (4) upheld the addition to tax for valuation overstatement under section 6659 because the underpayment of taxes was directly related to the overvaluation of the Sentinel EPE recyclers; and (5) held that losses and credits claimed with respect to the Clearwater Group partnership were attributable to tax-motivated tr

Pursuant to section 6214(a), respondent asserted additions to tax 4 under section 6659 for 1982 and 1983 in the respective amounts of $1,094 and $223.

For 1981 and 1982, respondent in these cases, on brief, has conceded the section 6659 additions to tax.

nt. MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION VASQUEZ, Judge: Respondent determined deficiencies in petitioner's Federal income taxes and additions to tax as follows: - 2 - Additions to Tax Year Deficiency Sec. 6653(a) Sec. 6653(a)(1) Sec. 6653(a)(2) Sec. 6659 1979 $1,476 $74 --- --- $443.00 1980 3,402 170 --- --- 1,021.00 1981 3,532 --- $177.00 1 1,060.00 1982 7,975 --- 398.75 1 1,766.10 1983 9,428 --- 471.40 1 1,677.60 1984 2,472 --- 123.60 1 741.60 1 50 percent of the interest due on the portio

of deficiency dated January 27, 1987, respondent determined deficiencies in, additions to, and increased interest on petitioners' Federal income tax as follows:1 Additions to Tax and Increased Interest Year Deficiency Sec. 6653(a)(1) Sec. 6653(a)(2) Sec. 6659 Sec. 6621(c) Sec. 6661 1981 $24,350.02 $1,217.50 1 $6,945.76 2 --- 1982 24,586 1,229.30 1 5,310.60 2 $1,721 1 50% of the interest due on the deficiency. 2 120% of the interest payable under sec. 6601. In the stipulation, petitioners agreed

6.00 50 percent of 2,607.90 3,930.00 interest due on 3$8,693 1 Sec. 6621(c) interest is determined to apply to the entire deficiency as determined for each of the taxable years 1978, 1979, 1981, and 1982. 2 Sec. 6661 is asserted as an alternative to sec. 6659. In the alternative, the addition is asserted as 25 percent of the underpayments of $30,342, $20,794, $25,168, and $15,720 for the taxable years 1978, 1979, 1981, and 1982, respectively. 3 This amount is taken from the partial copy of the n

tice of deficiency dated May 6, 1987, respondent determined deficiencies in, additions to, and increased interest on petitioners' Federal income tax as follows:1 Additions to Tax and Increased Interest Year Deficiency Sec. 6653(a)(1) Sec. 6653(a)(2) Sec. 6659 Sec. 6621(c) 1981 $13,173 $659 1 $3,952 2 1982 10,580 529 1 3,174 2 1 50% of the interest due on the deficiency. 2 120% of the interest payable under sec. 6601. In the stipulation, petitioners agreed to be bound by the test case entitled Pi

2, 1987, respondent determined deficiencies in, additions to, and increased interest on petitioners John and Mary Anne Antoine's Federal income tax as follows:2 Additions to Tax and Increased Interest Year Deficiency Sec. 6653(a)(1) Sec. 6653(a)(2) Sec. 6659 Sec. 6621(c) 1982 $9,951 $497.55 1 $2,179.27 2 1 50% of the interest due on the deficiency. 2 120% of the interest payable under sec. 6601. By notice of deficiency dated June 8, 1987, respondent determined deficiencies in, additions to, and

In his Motion for Partial Summary Judgment Regarding The Overvaluation Penalty, petitioner seeks a ruling that he is not liable for the additions to tax under section 6659 as determined by respondent.

titioners' Federal income tax for - 5 - 1982, plus increased interest under section 6621(c).2 In an amendment to answer, respondent asserted a lesser deficiency for 1982 in the amount of $51,043, plus additions to tax in the amount of $12,127 under section 6659 for valuation overstatement, in the amount of $2,552 under section 6653(a)(1) for negligence, and under section 6653(a)(2) in an amount equal to 50 percent of the interest due on $50,278.

- 4 - additions to tax under section 6653;2 (3) the taxpayers grossly overvalued the subject master recording and were liable for the addition to tax under section 6659 due to a valuation overstatement; (4) the taxpayers were liable for the increased rate of interest under section 6621(c) due to an underpayment of tax in excess of $1,000 attributable to one or more enumerated “tax motivated transactions”; and (5) the taxpayers were liable for a penalty under section 6673 as a result of advancing

deficiency dated February 18, 1988, respondent determined deficiencies in, additions to, and increased interest on petitioner's Federal income tax as follows:1 Additions to Tax and Increased Interest Year Deficiency Sec. 6653(a)(1) Sec. 6653(a)(2) Sec. 6659 Sec. 6621(c) Sec. 6661 1981 $ 6,435 $322 1 $1,844 2 --- 1982 11,245 562 1 2,885 2 $407 1 50% of the interest due on the deficiency. 2 120% of the interest payable under sec. 6601. In the stipulation, petitioner agreed to be bound by the test

Sec. Year Deficiency 6659 6661 1 Unless indicated otherwise all section references are to sections of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 as in effect for 1981. - 3 - 1981 $185,361 $55,608 --- 1982 27,232 8,170 1$6,808 1 Determined as alternative to sec. 6659 addition to tax. Respondent also determined that interest on the entire deficiencies for 1981 and 1982 is to be computed under section 6621(c). After concessions,2 the issue for decision is whether petitioner Nancy Silverman qualifies as an

s of deficiency dated August 2, 1988, respondent determined deficiencies in, additions to, and increased interest on petitioners' Federal income tax as follows:1 Additions to Tax and Increased Interest Year Deficiency Sec. 6653(a)(1) Sec. 6653(a)(2) Sec. 6659 Sec. 6621(c) 1981 $10,316.29 $ 515.82 1 $1,956.70 2 1982 7,663.00 383.15 1 2,298.90 2 1 50% of the interest due on the deficiency. 2 120% of the interest payable under sec. 6601. In the stipulation, petitioners agreed to be bound by the tes

h below. OPINION OF THE SPECIAL TRIAL JUDGE WOLFE, Special Trial Judge: Respondent determined deficiencies in and additions to petitioners' Federal income taxes as follows: Additions to Tax Petitioners Year Deficiency Sec. 6653(a)(1) Sec. 6653(a)(1) Sec. 6659 Glassley 1981 $20,222.00 $1,011.00 1 - Mahoney 1981 23,283.00 1,164.15 2 $6,984.90 Houser 1981 19,476.06 1,337.12 3 - 1982 160.00 277.35 4 - 150 percent of the interest due on $20,222. 250 percent of the interest due on $23,283. 350 percent

a substantial underpayment attributable to tax-motivated transactions under sec. 6621(c). 3 For 1982 respondent, in an amendment to answer, determined an addition to tax under section 6661 of $1,333.75 as an alternative to the addition to tax under section 6659 shown. The issues remaining for our consideration concern whether petitioner is liable for additions to tax under section 6653(a)1 for 1980; under section 6653(a)(1) and (2) for 1981, 1982, and 1983; and for increased interest under sect

h below. OPINION OF THE SPECIAL TRIAL JUDGE WOLFE, Special Trial Judge: Respondent determined deficiencies in and additions to petitioners' Federal income taxes as follows: Additions to Tax Petitioners Year Deficiency Sec. 6653(a)(1) Sec. 6653(a)(1) Sec. 6659 Glassley 1981 $20,222.00 $1,011.00 1 - Mahoney 1981 23,283.00 1,164.15 2 $6,984.90 Houser 1981 19,476.06 1,337.12 3 - 1982 160.00 277.35 4 - 150 percent of the interest due on $20,222. 250 percent of the interest due on $23,283. 350 percent

for the 1982 taxable year (the second notice of deficiency) to petitioners at the same address, determining the following additions to tax with respect to the tax adjustments related to Whitman: Additions to Tax Year Sec. 6653(a)(1) Sec. 6653(a)(2) Sec. 6659 1982 $853 50 percent of $4,620 the interest due on $17,068 This Court’s jurisdiction is strictly limited by statute, and, unless a petition is filed within the time prescribed by statute, we lack jurisdiction and must dismiss the case for t

--- MAJORITY --- OPINION Tannenwald, Judge: Respondent determined deficiencies in, and additions to, the decedents’ Federal income taxes as follows: Additions to tax Year Deficiency Sec. 6653(a)(1) Sec. 6653(a)(2) Sec. 6659 1981 $55,681 $2,784 $16,704 1982 60,047 3,002 1 18,041 After concessions by both parties, the issue remaining for decision is whether, under the doctrine of equitable recoupment, petitioners may offset against their Federal income tax liability an overpayment of estate tax, t

.67 1981 $5,765.00 --- Due on $35,032.19 1982 5,680.80 $56,874.38 Due on $246,443.50 1983 --- 102,750.00 Due on $411,000.00 For 1982 respondent determined an addition to tax under section 6661 of $4,734 as an alternative to the addition to tax under section 6659 shown. Unless otherwise indicated, all section references are to the Internal Revenue Code in effect for the years in issue, and all Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure. The parties have filed a stipulati

Section 6659 (as in effect for 1977) provided that additions to tax shall be paid upon notice or demand and shall be assessed, collected, and paid in the same manner as taxes, and that any reference to "tax" imposed by this title shall be deemed also to refer to additions to tax. There are cases involving various factual situations that indicate th

dent Executrix, and Patricia G. Ray: Additions to tax Sec. Sec. Sec. Sec. Sec. Year 6651(a) 6653(a)(1) 6653(a)(2) 6659 6661* 1983 -- $1,489.00 $27,843.54 $8,936.00 $7,447.00 1984 $249.00 3,932.00 1,351.00 539.00 -- * Determined as an alternative to sec. 6659. Docket No. 4583-93 - Cipriano Dominguez and the Estate of Isabel Dominguez, Deceased, Cipriano Dominguez, Independent Executor: Additions to tax Sec. Sec. Sec. Sec. Year 6653(a)(1) 6653(a)(2) 6659 6661* 1983 $782.00 $14,598.09 $4,693.00 $3,

dent Executrix, and Patricia G. Ray: Additions to tax Sec. Sec. Sec. Sec. Sec. Year 6651(a) 6653(a)(1) 6653(a)(2) 6659 6661* 1983 -- $1,489.00 $27,843.54 $8,936.00 $7,447.00 1984 $249.00 3,932.00 1,351.00 539.00 -- * Determined as an alternative to sec. 6659. Docket No. 4583-93 - Cipriano Dominguez and the Estate of Isabel Dominguez, Deceased, Cipriano Dominguez, Independent Executor: Additions to tax Sec. Sec. Sec. Sec. Year 6653(a)(1) 6653(a)(2) 6659 6661* 1983 $782.00 $14,598.09 $4,693.00 $3,

.67 1981 $5,765.00 --- Due on $35,032.19 1982 5,680.80 $56,874.38 Due on $246,443.50 1983 --- 102,750.00 Due on $411,000.00 For 1982 respondent determined an addition to tax under section 6661 of $4,734 as an alternative to the addition to tax under section 6659 shown. Unless otherwise indicated, all section references are to the Internal Revenue Code in effect for the years in issue, and all Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure. The parties have filed a stipulati

s of deficiency, respondent determined the following deficiencies in and additions to petitioners' Federal income taxes for the taxable year ending December 31, 1981: Additions to Tax Docket No. Petitioners Deficiency Sec. 6653(a)(1) Sec. 6653(a)(2) Sec. 6659 14254-89 Triemstra $13,929 $696 1 $4,179 17923-89 Cohn 14,728 736 1 4,418 18126-89 Kravitz 10,506 525 1 3,152 150 percent of the interest payable with respect to the portion of the underpayment attributable to negligence. In the notices of

The overvaluations occurred in years subsequent to the effective date for the section 6659 addition to tax for valuation overstatements (which was effective for returns filed after December 31, 1981).