Robert H. Avellini - Page 12

                                                - 12 -                                                  
            proposed stipulation of settled issues in this case although they                           
            did execute such a revision at about the same time in another                               
            case involving substantially similar circumstances.  See Reister                            
            v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1995-305.                                                       
                  Dickinson Recycling Associates, Sam Winer, Tax Matters                                
            Partner v. Commissioner, docket No. 13191-89 (Dickinson), was                               
            calendared for trial at a special session of the Court in March                             
            1994, in Detroit, Michigan, the same session at which the instant                           
            case was tried.  The Dickinson partnership is a partnership                                 
            subject to the TEFRA provisions at sections 6221 through 6231.                              
            Efron II, a limited partnership formed in June 1982, invested in                            
            a limited partnership interest in Dickinson, and consequently, is                           
            a second tier investor in a plastics recycling transaction.  The                            
            Dickinson case was resolved without trial, and this Court's                                 
            decision was entered on February 23, 1994, and became final on                              
            May 24, 1994.                                                                               
                  On June 9, 1995, petitioner filed a document which the Court                          
            has designated as petitioner's motion to reopen record.  In such                            
            motion, petitioner urges that the Court require respondent to                               
            produce the proposed stipulation of agreed adjustments which                                
            petitioner contends both parties executed prior to trial and that                           
            we bind respondent to petitioner's interpretation of that                                   
            document not only as to the shopping center issues, but also as                             
            to all other issues, including the treatment of petitioner's                                
            interest in Dickinson through Efron II.                                                     




Page:  Previous  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011