their decisions while affirming Tax Court decisions, while the Fifth and Ninth Circuit decisions arose in cases in which those courts reversed the Tax Court. The impact of the Golsen rule apparently has been overlooked in several cases involving the section 6222 penalties. See, e.g., Alpha, 84 Fed.Cl. at 627 (erroneously citing McCrary and Derby as evidence that the Tax Court supports the restrictive view of the section 6662(b)(3) penalty). 31 . See also Merino v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue, 196 F.3d 147, 155 (3d Cir.1999) (“whenever a taxpayer knowingly invests in a tax avoidance entity which the taxpayer should know has no economic substance, the valuation overstatement penalty is applied as a matter of course"); Illes v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue, 982 F.2d 163, 167 (6th Cir.1992) (<HOLDING>); Massengill v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue, 876
holding that the lax benefit generated was directly dependent upon the valuation overstatement holding that a plantshutdown benefit is not an optional form of benefit holding that claim that trust should have been distributed directly to plaintiffs was for the benefit of the estate because it allegedly was to implement testators intent holding that the claims to a statutory benefit had not yet vested when the legislature eliminated the benefit holding that a claimed expense must directly and substantially benefit the bankruptcy estate