(noting that the shareholders of a " 'flow-through' Subchapter S Corporation” are required to include their share of the company’s income, deductions, losses and credits in their personal income tax returns). 13 .The Tax Court’s decision that Crispin’s CARDS transaction lacked economic substance is consistent with that Court’s other CARDS cases, all of which have disallowed deductions associated with those transactions. See Kipnis v. Comm’r, Nos. 30370-07, 30373-07, 2012 WL 5371787 (U.S.Tax Ct.2012); Gustashaw v. Comm'r, 102 T.C.M. (CCH) 161 (2011), aff'd, 696 F.3d 1124 (11th Cir.2012); Kerman v. Comm’r, 101 T.C.M. (CCH) 1241 (2011), appeal pending, No. 11-1822 is misplaced because they do not state the law of this Circuit. See Merino v. Comm’r, 196 F.3d 147, 157-159 (3d Cir.1999) (<HOLDING>). Our reasoning as to the applicability of the
holding that a transaction did not satisfy the requirements of  1031a when a partnership sold property and individual partners acquired the exchange property holding that the economic substance of a transaction rather than its form determines its tax treatment 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 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 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