- 10 -
Respondent counters that petitioner will not be prejudiced
by the granting of her motions on the ground that petitioner was
aware of respondent's intention to seek leave to raise the issue
at the time the parties filed their last Joint Motion for
Continuance in both dockets. Respondent also maintains that,
because neither case is presently calendared for trial,
6(...continued)
THE COURT: Given that difference, why should the
Court not permit an amendment in * * * [docket No.
16170-94]?
MR. MILLER: I view the settlement process as sort
of like playing cards. You are turning one card over
at a time. You are trying to find what is important to
the other side, what they have flexibility on, what the
IRS national office is controlling that you know you
can't do anything with, and it is sort of a process of
feeling out while not showing all of your cards.
The prejudice in * * * [docket No. 26352-93] is
that we put out all of our cards. I thought the game
was over, and suddenly the government pulled an ace
from their pocket. * * * [In docket No. 16170-94] we
have shown some of our cards. Once you have shown
them, you can't ever put them back in your pocket. So
the prejudice really is that we have begun the
negotiations and we have conceded certain things going
towards settling all the issues.
As I say, Your Honor, I think the prejudice is a
lot less in that. I am not as troubled by the
government being able to raise the issue in the latter
docket as I would be troubled if the Court allows the
government to raise it in the earlier docket. The
taxpayer paid for that certainty in the earlier docket.
They gave up a number of issues and hundreds of
thousands of dollars in order to get that settlement.
* * * * * * *
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011