- 3 -
claim such stipulation of settlement entitles them to the same
settlement as the taxpayer and the IRS reached in docket Nos.
10382-86 and 10383-86, each of which was styled Miller v.
Commissioner. Petitioners' present counsel argues that he was
not even aware of the settlement of the Miller cases until
September 1994. We note, however, that prior to the entry of
appearance of petitioners' present counsel in June 1992,
petitioners were represented by the same attorneys who tried the
Provizer case, represented the taxpayers in Miller v.
Commissioner, supra, and, for use in various other cases,
negotiated the terms of the stipulation of settlement on which
petitioners now seek to rely. Those attorneys, at least, should
have been well aware of the matters that petitioners' present
counsel considers newly discovered. Consequently, there is ample
reason for us to conclude that in the past, petitioners, acting
through well-informed counsel, rejected the idea of seeking the
same treatment accorded the taxpayer in the Miller case and
instead chose to proceed with litigation.
Moreover, even if we express no view as to petitioners'
present counsel's knowledge of the background facts or as to the
extent to which petitioners are charged with whatever knowledge
petitioners' prior counsel may have had concerning these matters,
at the very least, petitioners' present counsel seeks to raise a
new issue long after trial. Resolution of such issue plainly
would require a new trial. Such further trial "would be contrary
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011