both a valuation misstatement ground and a non-valuation-misstatement ground for the same adjustment. When considering whether such a “dual-cause” scenario falls within a statute’s reach, courts consider the context and policy underlying the statute. Fid. Int’l, 661 F.3d at 673 (citing W. Page Keeton et al., Prosser and Keeton on Torts §§ 41-42 (5th ed.1984)). There is little doubt that Congress intended to prevent abuse of the tax code when it enacted the valuation misstatement penalty. See, e.g., id. at 673 (“One might think that it would be perverse to allow the taxpayer to avoid a penalty otherwise applicable to his conduct on the ground that the taxpayer had also engaged in additional violations that would support disallowance of the claimed losses.”); Gilman, 933 F.2d at 152 (<HOLDING>); Merino, 196 F.3d at 158-59 (agreeing with
holding that the valuation misstatement penalty applies to property acquired in a transaction found to lack economic substance and expressly declining to follow todd and heasley holding that the economic substance of a transaction rather than its form determines its tax treatment holding that a transaction disregarded for lack of economic substance  a nonvaluationrelated ground  nevertheless may be subject to a valuation misstatement penalty because a transaction that lacks economic substance generally reflects an arrangement in which the basis of the property was misvalued in the context of the transaction and that congress intended to penalize such transactions recognizing step transaction doctrine whereby courts must consider all steps of transaction in light of entire transaction so that substance of transaction will control over form of each step recognizing that a transaction that lacks economic substance generally reflects an arrangement in which the basis of the property was misvalued in the context of the transaction