With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". § 465, remarking that "the § 465 adjustment was listed right along with the defendant’s other theories for adjusting plaintiffs’ basis and gain," the IRS’s decision to cite I.R.C. § 465 does not convert the section into one that applies to loss deductions in the face of its plain language to the contrary. 9 . The other cases the trial court cited to support its conclusion also involved fact patterns where an alternative basis for the IRS’s adjustments existed. See Derby v. Comm’r, 95 T.C.M. (CCH) 1177, 2008 WL 540271, *25, 2008 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 46, at *90-91 (Tax Ct. Feb. 28, 2008) (“[Bjecause there is a separate, independent ground for disallowing [the] deductions, the overvaluation penalty may not be imposed against the petitioners.”); McCrary v. Comm’r, 92 T.C. 827, 851-55 (1989) (<HOLDING>); Rogers v. Comm’r, 60 T.C.M. (CCH) 1386, 1990

A: holding that the lessors interest in the leased property was subject to liens because it was perfectly obvious that the parties knew that the improvements at issue were the pith of the lease and that except for them the lease would not have been executed and because the improvements were essential to the purpose of the lease
B: holding that valuation overstatement penalties did not apply where the taxpayers conceded that they were not entitled to an investment tax credit because the agreement was a license and not a lease which were grounds unrelated to valuation
C: holding that the plaintiffs were not entitled to present testimony that they were induced to enter an automobile lease by promises that they could disregard terms of the lease
D: holding that apprendi was not triggered because the defendants were sentenced to terms of imprisonment that were within the maximum penalties for the rico offenses that they were found guilty of committing
B.