DocketNumber： No. 3076-95; No. 15324-95
Filed Date： 12/22/2000
Status： Non-Precedential
Modified Date： 11/20/2020
2000 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 462">*462 Decisions will be entered for respondent.
MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION
DAWSON, JUDGE: These consolidated cases were assigned to Special Trial Judge Norman H. Wolfe pursuant to the provisions of section 7443A(b)(4) in effect when these proceedings commenced, and Rules 180, 181, and 183. All section references are to the Internal Revenue Code, and all Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure. The Court agrees with and adopts the opinion of the Special Trial Judge, which is set forth below.
OPINION OF THE SPECIAL TRIAL JUDGE
WOLFE, SPECIAL TRIAL JUDGE: In so-called affected 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
____ _______________ _______________ _________
1979 $ 808 -0- $ 4,848
1982 1,607 -0-
1984 10
WARREN S. & ELIZABETH A. WEST
Additions to Tax
_________________________________________________
Year
____ _______________ _______________ _________
1979 $ 953 -0- $ 5,717
1980 204 -0- 1,191
1982 1,239
2000 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 462">*464 The issues for decisions
2000 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 462">*465 FINDINGS OF FACT
Some of the facts have been stipulated, and they are so found. The stipulated facts and attached exhibits are incorporated herein by this reference. Petitioners Keith E. and Marilyn B. West resided in Edina, Minnesota, at the time they filed the petition in this case. Petitioners Warren S. and Elizabeth A. West resided in Burnsville, Minnesota, at the time they filed the petition in this case.
These consolidated cases are part of the Plastics Recycling group of cases. The additions to tax arise from the disallowance of losses, investment credits, and energy credits claimed by petitioners with respect to a partnership called Masters Recycling Associates (Masters or the partnership).
For a detailed discussion of the transactions involved in the Plastics Recycling cases, see
In a series of simultaneous transactions closely resembling those in Provizer, that for convenience are referred to herein as the Masters transactions, Packaging Industries Group (PI) of Hyannis, Massachusetts, manufactured and sold 2000 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 462">*467 Simultaneously, ECI resold the recyclers to F & G Equipment Corp. (F&G) for $ 1,750,000 per machine. For each machine, F&G agreed to pay ECI $ 128,250 in cash, with the remaining balance of $ 1,621,750 financed through a purportedly partial recourse promissory note. The note was recourse to the extent of 20 percent of its face value. However, the recourse portion was payable only after the nonrecourse portion was satisfied.
In turn, F&G leased the recyclers to Masters. Pursuant to the lease and in accordance with applicable provisions of the Internal Revenue Code and Treasury regulations, F&G elected to treat Masters as having purchased the recyclers for purposes of the investment and business energy tax credits.
Simultaneously, Masters entered into a joint venture with PI and Resin Recyclers, Inc. (RRI). The joint venture agreement provided that RRI was to assist Masters with the placement of recyclers with end-users. At the same time, PI, ECI, F&G, Masters, and RRI entered into arrangements that provided that PI would pay a monthly joint venture fee to Masters, in the same amount that Masters would pay as monthly rent to F&G, in the same amount as F&G would pay monthly on its2000 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 462">*468 note to ECI, in the same amount that ECI would pay each month on its note to PI. In connection with these arrangements, PI, ECI, F&G, Masters, and RRI entered into offsetting agreements so that these monthly payments were kept only as bookkeeping entries and no money actually was transferred. Consequently, all of the monthly payments required among the entities in the above transactions offset each other, and the transactions occurred simultaneously.
On its 1982 tax return Masters reported that the four recyclers had an aggregate basis of $ 7,000,000, or $ 1,750,000 each, for purposes of the investment and business energy tax credits. In the present cases, the parties stipulated that in 1982 the recyclers were not properly valued at $ 1,750,000 each, but instead had only a maximum value of $ 30,000 to $ 50,000 each. On its 1982, 1983, 1984, and 1985 tax returns, Masters reported net ordinary losses of $ 713,291, $ 36,205, $ 16,720, and $ 15,832, respectively. Losses and credits were reported by Masters on its tax returns, and the portions attributable to petitioners, respectively, were included on Forms K-1 issued to them and filed with Masters' tax returns.
B. THE PRIVATE OFFERING2000 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 462">*469 MEMORANDUM
Generally, Masters distributed a private offering memorandum to potential investors. The offering memorandum informed investors that Masters' business would be conducted in accordance with the transaction described above. The offering memorandum also warned potential investors of significant business and tax risks associated with investing in Masters.
Specifically, the offering memorandum warned potential investors that: (1) There was a substantial likelihood of an audit by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS); (2) "On audit, the purchase price of the Sentinel EPS recyclers to be paid by F&G to ECI may be challenged by the * * * [IRS] as being in excess of the fair market value thereof, a practice followed by * * * [the IRS] in transactions it deems to be tax shelters"; (3) the partnership had no prior operating history; (4) the limited partners would have no control over the conduct of the partnership's business; (5) there was no established market for the Sentinel EPS recyclers; (6) there were no assurances that market prices for virgin resin would remain at then current prices per pound or that the recycled pellets would be as marketable as virgin pellets; and (7) 2000 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 462">*470 certain potential conflicts of interest existed.
The offering memorandum contained a marketing opinion by Stanley Ulanoff (Ulanoff) and a technical opinion by Samuel Burstein (Burstein). Ulanoff owned a 4.37-percent interest in Taylor Recycling Associates, which purported to lease four plastic recyclers, and Burstein owned a 5.82-percent interest in Jefferson Recycling Associates, which also purported to lease four plastic recyclers. The offering memorandum disclosed that Burstein was a client of PI's corporate counsel. The offering memorandum also warned potential investors not to rely on the statements and opinions contained in the memorandum, but to conduct an independent investigation.
The private offering memorandum also projected that in the initial year of investment an investor contributing $ 50,000 would receive investment tax credits and business energy credits of $ 77,000 and tax deductions of $ 38,940. The private offering memorandum provided that an investor in Masters was required to have an individual net worth and/or net worth with a spouse of $ 1,000,000, inclusive of residences and personal property, or income of $ 200,000 per year for each unit of investment.
On June 5, 1989, respondent issued Notices of Final Partnership Administrative Adjustment (FPAA) to Masters' tax matters partner (TMP) for 1982, 1983, 1984, and 1985. Subsequently, on June 19, 1989, copies of the FPAA's for 1982, 1983, and 1984 were sent to Keith and Marilyn West. On the same date, a copy of the FPAA for 1982 was sent to Warren and Elizabeth West. In the FPAA's, respondent disallowed the losses that Masters had reported on its 1982, 1983, 1984, and 1985 Federal income tax returns and determined that Masters did not incur "a loss in a trade or business or in an activity entered into for profit or with respect to property held for the production of income." Respondent also determined that Masters' basis in the recycling equipment was zero, rather than $ 7,000,000, for purposes of the investment tax and business energy credits.
Subsequently, a petition was filed by Masters' tax matters partner. On February 23, 1994, the Court entered a decision in Masters Recycling Associates, Sam Winer, Tax Matters Partner v. Commissioner, docket No. 18417-89. This decision reflects a full concession by Masters of all items of income, loss, and the2000 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 462">*472 underlying equipment valuation used for tax credit purposes.
In 1956, Keith West (Keith) graduated from the University of Minnesota with a bachelor of science degree. After graduation, Keith was employed in the engineering department of Benson Optical Co. (Benson). Subsequently, Keith was promoted by Benson to vice president of operations, then executive vice president, and then ultimately president. Keith was the president of Benson from 1977 to 1985. Benson had 1,600 employees and had offices and laboratories in 23 States. Eight or nine vice presidents reported directly to Keith, as president. In 1969, Benson was acquired by a publicly held company, Frigitronics. At one time, Keith also served on Frigitronics' board of directors.
Prior to 1982, Keith had only made a small number of investments. He had accumulated Benson Optical stock, and he had Frigitronics stock after the acquisition. Also, he had made a limited partnership investment in fourplexes in Minneapolis, at the suggestion of a friend and neighbor who was a partner in the selling company. In 1982, Keith was 51 years old and was interested in planning for his future retirement. Upon the recommendation2000 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 462">*473 of a friend, Keith contacted a Cigna representative named Ernest Mejia (Mejia). Keith had some familiarity with Cigna because he understood that Cigna was a division of Connecticut General Life Insurance Co. (Connecticut General). One of the alternative investments offered to employees by Benson's profit-sharing trust, of which Keith was a trustee, was a fund sponsored by Connecticut General.
Sometime during 1982, Keith met with Mejia to review his income and retirement goals. During this meeting, Mejia recommended investing in Hamilton Recycling Associates (Hamilton). Keith contends that he was impressed by Hamilton because Hamilton offered solutions to the United States' energy shortage and waste disposal problems. Keith also noted that Benson received and used products for packaging similar to the so-called peanuts produced by the recyclers. Keith further asserts that Mejia represented that Hamilton was a Cigna- researched investment. Keith did not review any Cigna materials promoting Hamilton, nor did he make any independent inquiries as to whether Hamilton was a Cigna-researched investment.
Keith contends that Mejia told him that he had traveled to New York and met with Hamilton's2000 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 462">*474 accountants. Keith also contends that Mejia told him that he had traveled to a site where a recycler was being used and had brought back some of the peanuts the machine produced. Mejia did not testify at the trial.
Keith received a copy of Hamilton's offering memorandum and spent 3 or 4 hours reviewing it. In reviewing the memorandum, Keith noted and relied upon Ulanoff's marketing report and Burstein's technical opinion, even though he was aware that the memorandum specifically warned potential investors not to rely on the reports contained in it.
Subsequently, Keith and Mejia spoke with Gerald Grande (Grande), a certified public accountant (C.P.A.) who had previously given tax advice to Keith and had prepared Keith's income tax returns. Pursuant to this conversation, Grande had one of his firm's staff members review the offering memorandum. Based upon the staff person's review, Grande concluded that the Hamilton transaction met the criteria for the energy tax credit and that the offering memorandum was properly prepared. However, Grande did not review Hamilton's nontax business aspects. At trial, Keith testified as follows: "Mr. Grande was not asked, nor did he give an opinion2000 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 462">*475 on the investment. He was only asked to review the document to see if it met the criteria for the energy tax credit." Neither Grande nor the staff person who reviewed the offering memorandum had any experience or education with plastics or plastics recycling. Moreover, Grande did not contact any expert in the plastics or plastics recycling field as part of his review. Grande also testified that he probably referred to Hamilton as a tax shelter during his discussions with Keith and Mejia.
Keith does not have any education or experience with the plastics or plastics recycling industries. Keith also did not consult with anyone who had any expertise with plastics or plastics recycling. However, Keith contends that he decided to invest in Hamilton based upon Mejia's and Grande's advice.
Ultimately, Keith was unable to invest in Hamilton because partnership interests in Hamilton were no longer available by the time he decided to invest. Then Mejia told Keith that interests in Masters, another recycling limited partnership identical to Hamilton, were available. Keith received the Masters offering memorandum, but he did not thoroughly review the Masters offering memorandum because it was2000 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 462">*476 duplicative of the Hamilton offering memorandum.
For 1979, 1982, 1983, and 1984, Keith and Marilyn West filed joint Federal income tax returns. In 1982, Keith invested $ 25,000 in Masters. As a result of his investment in Masters, Keith claimed net operating loss deductions of $ 19,616, $ 995, and $ 460 on his 1982, 1983, and 1984 Federal income tax returns, respectively. On his 1982 Federal income tax return, Keith also claimed investment tax and business energy credits totaling $ 38,500, which was limited by his 1982 income tax liability (as reduced by the partnership loss) and the alternative minimum tax. On April 20, 1983, Keith filed an application for tentative refund, Form 1045, carrying back investment and business energy tax credits to 1979 to generate a tax refund of $ 16,161.
Keith did not actively monitor his investment in Masters. At trial, Keith testified: "[T]here wasn't a lot you could do to monitor. We certainly got the mail from the Internal Revenue Service as well as from the partnership. And that's about all we could monitor." Keith also acknowledged that he did not undertake any independent investigation regarding the value of the recyclers and that he was2000 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 462">*477 fully aware of the tax benefits associated with investing in Masters.
In 1955, Warren West (Warren) received a bachelor of science degree in civil engineering from the University of Minnesota. After graduation, Warren was employed by the Center City Co. (Center City). Eventually, Warren became the president of Center City. At times, Warren also sat on the boards of three publicly held companies.
Prior to 1982, Warren invested mostly in shares of publicly traded companies. Sometime during 1982, Warren learned about Hamilton from Mejia, an agent for Cigna who was working with Warren with regard to his financial and estate planning. Warren asserts that Mejia told him that he had traveled east and had seen the recycling equipment and that Hamilton was a viable ongoing operation. As result of his discussions with Mejia, Warren spent an unspecified number of hours reviewing the Hamilton offering memorandum. Warren also asserts that he asked his C.P.A., Jim Maki (Maki), to review the Hamilton offering memorandum. Warren claims that Maki told him that the Hamilton transaction satisfied certain tax regulations concerning the organization's qualification as a2000 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 462">*478 limited partnership so that it could pass through tax benefits to limited partners. Warren concedes that his conversations with Maki were limited to tax issues surrounding Hamilton and not Hamilton's economic or financial aspects. Maki did not testify during the trial.
Warren did not invest in Hamilton because partnership interests were no longer available when he reached his decision to invest. Then Mejia told Warren that partnership interests in Masters, another recycling partnership substantially identical to Hamilton, were available. Accordingly, Warren received the Masters offering memorandum. Warren did not review the Masters offering memorandum because it was substantially identical to the Hamilton offering memorandum. Warren did not undertake any independent investigation concerning Masters' economic or financial aspects. At trial, Warren testified that "the only thing I had to go on was in the prospectus. And it looked fairly good." Warren further testified as to why the Masters prospectus looked good to him. "Two reasons: One is the relatively generous tax benefit up front, and that in the long-run, it was supposed to turn a profit." Warren further testified that he did2000 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 462">*479 "very little" to monitor his investment in Masters. Warren also acknowledged that Mejia marketed Masters as a tax shelter.
Warren does not have any experience or education in plastics or plastics recycling. He did not consult with any experts in the plastics or plastics recycling industries.
For 1979, 1980, and 1982, Warren and Elizabeth West filed joint Federal income tax returns. In 1982, Warren invested $ 25,000 in Masters. As a result of his investment in Masters, Warren claimed a net operating loss deduction of $ 19,615 on his 1982 Federal income tax return. On his 1982 Federal income tax return, Warren also claimed investment tax and business energy tax credits totaling $ 38,502, which was limited to his 1982 income tax liability (as reduced by the partnership loss) and the alternative minimum tax. On April 18, 1983, Warren filed an application for tentative refund, Form 1045, carrying back investment and business energy tax credits to 1979 and 1980 to generate tax refunds of $ 19,057, and $ 3,970, respectively.
OPINION
We have decided many Plastics Recycling cases. Most of these cases, like the present cases, raised issues regarding additions to tax for negligence and valuation2000 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 462">*480 overstatement. See, e.g.,
In
In these cases, respondent determined that petitioners were liable for additions to tax for negligence under
1. PETITIONERS' PURPORTED RELIANCE ON AN ADVISER
In these cases, petitioners claim that they reasonably relied upon the advice of a qualified tax adviser. A taxpayer may avoid liability for the additions to tax under
Moreover, reliance on representations by insiders or promoters, or on offering materials has been held an inadequate defense to negligence. See
In these cases, petitioners' purported reliance on Grande and Maki does not relieve them of liability for the additions to tax for negligence. Grande's and Maki's expertise was in taxation, not2000 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 462">*485 plastics or plastics recycling. Moreover, neither Grande nor Maki consulted with any persons who had such expertise in plastics or plastics recycling. At trial, Keith and Warren testified that Grande's and Maki's review was limited to examining the offering memorandum to ascertain whether the documents had been properly prepared so that they as limited partners would be entitled to the tax benefits presented by the offering memorandum. In effect, the advice provided by Grande and Maki did not suggest anything beyond the view that, if the facts and circumstances proved to be as represented by Mejia and in the offering memorandum, then the tax benefits described in the offering memorandum should be allowed. Keith and Warren did not rely upon Grande or Maki with regard to Masters' nontax business aspects.
Accordingly, petitioners, Grande, and Maki solely relied upon the offering materials and Mejia's representations with regard to the recyclers' value and Masters' economic viability. The offering memorandum contained reports by Ulanoff and Burstein. Petitioners, Grande, and Maki never investigated whether Ulanoff or Burstein had an interest in plastics recycling transactions. In fact, 2000 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 462">*486 Ulanoff and Burstein each invested in plastics recycling partnerships. The offering memorandum also disclosed that Burstein was a client and business associate of PI's corporate counsel. Moreover, the offering memorandum specifically warned potential investors not to rely on the statements or opinions contained in it. Lastly, as a broker, Mejia clearly had a financial interest in selling the partnership interests to petitioners. In this transaction, Mejia was engaged in a selling function rather than an advisory function, and petitioners, as experienced businessmen and educated persons, knew or should have known to exercise caution in relying upon the seller's representative for advice as to whether they should buy.
On this record, we hold that it was not reasonable for petitioners to claim substantial tax credits and partnership losses on the basis of Mejia's, Grande's, or Maki's advice. Neither Grande nor Maki had the requisite expertise or knowledge of the pertinent facts to provide informed advice regarding the claimed partnership losses and tax credits. A taxpayer may rely upon his adviser's expertise, but it is not reasonable or prudent to rely upon an adviser regarding matters2000 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 462">*487 outside of his field of expertise or with respect to facts that he does not verify. See
2. PETITIONERS' PURPORTED PROFIT MOTIVE
2000 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 462">*488 In these cases, petitioners also contend that they were not negligent because they invested in Masters for economic profits and as a source of income for retirement. Keith and Warren each had an extensive business background and had enjoyed a successful career in his respective field. Moreover, Keith and Warren each had been the head of a large company and each had experience with complex financial decisions. Keith and Warren read Hamilton's offering memorandum, which was substantially identical to Masters' offering memorandum. The offering memorandum specifically warned potential investors of significant business and tax risks associated with investing in these types of partnerships. The offering memorandum also warned potential investors that the value of the recyclers might be challenged by the IRS, a practice often followed by the IRS in transactions it deems to be tax shelters. Nevertheless, petitioners disregarded these warnings and failed to consult any independent advisers with expertise in plastics or plastics recycling. Petitioners also failed to conduct a reasonable independent investigation into the market value of the recyclers or any of the other economics of the Masters' 2000 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 462">*489 transaction. Moreover, Grande testified that he probably referred to Hamilton as a tax shelter. Warren also testified that he knew that Masters was a tax shelter.
Petitioners' reliance on
In addition, the taxpayers in Krause were either experienced in or investigated the oil industry and EOR specifically. One of the taxpayers in Krause undertook a significant investigation of the proposed investment, including researching EOR. The other taxpayer was a geological and mining engineer who hired an independent expert to review the offering materials. See
Keith and Warren were both sophisticated and well educated businessmen. There were many factors that should have alerted petitioners to conduct independent investigations of Masters. The offering memorandum warned each prospective purchaser that he should consult with his own professional adviser as to the legal, tax, and business aspects of investing2000 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 462">*491 in Masters. Moreover, the offering memorandum also warned potential investors about numerous business and tax risks. Nevertheless, petitioners disregarded these warnings and failed to undertake an appropriate independent investigation.
3. CONCLUSION AS TO NEGLIGENCE
Under the circumstances of these cases, petitioners failed to exercise due care in claiming large deductions and tax credits with respect to Masters on their Federal income tax returns. It was not reasonable for petitioners to rely as they did on the offering memorandum, promoters, or insiders to the transaction. Petitioners' accountants were asked to make only a limited technical examination of the documents presented to them as a tax shelter, and that is all they did. Petitioners, Grande, and Maki did not undertake a good faith investigation of the fair market value of the recyclers or the underlying economic viability or financial structure of Masters.
Upon consideration of this record, we hold that petitioners are liable for the negligence additions to tax under
In the notices of deficiency in these cases, respondent determined that petitioners2000 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 462">*492 were liable for
Petitioners claimed tax benefits, including investment tax credits and business energy credits, based on a purported value of $ 1,750,000 for each recycler. Petitioners have conceded that the fair market value of a recycler in 1982 was not in excess of $ 50,000. Accordingly, if disallowance of petitioners' claimed benefits is attributable to such valuation overstatements, petitioners are liable for
Petitioners contend that
1. THE GROUNDS FOR PETITIONERS' UNDERPAYMENTS
Petitioners argue that where, as here, the Commissioner completely disallows a tax benefit, the tax underpayment cannot be attributable to a valuation overstatement. Petitioners cite the following cases to support their argument:
Petitioners' reliance on
We also find that the facts in these cases are distinguishable from the facts in
Lastly, we note that petitioners' argument is similar to the arguments that were raised in other plastics recycling cases. See
2. CONCESSION OF THE DEFICIENCY
Petitioners also argue that Masters' concession in the underlying partnership case precludes imposition of the
Masters' concession does not obviate our finding that Masters lacked economic substance due to overvaluation of the recyclers. The value of the recyclers was established in
Moreover, concession of the investment tax credit in and of itself does not relieve taxpayers of liability for the
In these cases, petitioners each2000 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 462">*500 stipulated substantially the same facts concerning the Masters transaction as we found in
Petitioners' reliance on
For the foregoing reasons, we hold that petitioners are liable for the
To reflect the foregoing,
Decisions will be entered for respondent.
1. Fifty percent of the interest payable with respect to the
portion of the underpayment that is attributable to negligence. The
underpayments were determined and assessed pursuant to a partnership-
level proceeding. See secs. 6231-6233. With regard to petitioners
Keith E. and Marilyn B. West, respondent determined underpayments
attributable to negligence of $ 32,147, $ 498, and $ 207 for 1982, 1983,
and 1984, respectively. With regard to petitioners Warren S. and
Elizabeth A. West, respondent determined an underpayment attributable
to negligence for 1982 of $ 24,772.↩
1. It would appear that petitioners have abandoned any contention regarding the statute of limitations (the so-called Davenport issue) in view of the affirmance of this Court's opinion on that issue by the Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. See
2. Terms such as sale and lease, as well as their derivatives, are used for convenience only and do not imply that the particular transaction was a sale or lease for Federal tax purposes. Similarly, terms such as joint venture and agreement are also used for convenience only and do not imply that the particular arrangement was a joint venture or an agreement for Federal tax purposes.↩
3. EPS stands for expanded polystyrene. The case of
4. To the extent that
5. Petitioners' citation of
American Properties, Inc. v. Commissioner ( 1957 )
Freytag v. Commissioner ( 1991 )
Richard J. Todd and Denese W. Todd v. Commissioner of ... ( 1988 )
John B. Gainer v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue ( 1990 )
Preston W. And Joyce Massengill v. Commissioner of Internal ... ( 1989 )
Donald Merino Rosemarie Merino v. Commissioner of Internal ... ( 1999 )
Kerry W. Illes v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue ( 1992 )
Frank C. Pasternak Judith Pasternak (92-1681/1682) Anthony ... ( 1993 )
Hyman S. Zfass v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue ( 1997 )
Klein v. United States ( 1999 )
Freytag v. Commissioner ( 1987 )
David E. Heasley and Kathleen Heasley v. Commissioner of ... ( 1990 )
Sheldon Jay David, Marilyn David, Walter David and Marian ... ( 1995 )
Harold Chakales Linda Carol Chakales v. Commissioner of ... ( 1996 )
Laurence M. Addington, David M. Cohn, John Sann and ... ( 2000 )
Joseph M. Irom v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue ( 1989 )
Howard Gilman v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue ( 1991 )
thomas-l-freytag-and-sharon-n-freytag-v-commissioner-of-internal ( 1990 )