- 8 - two Miller cases. Estate of Satin v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1994-435; Fisher v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1994-434.6 After the lead counsel for the taxpayers and respondent agreed upon the test cases, respondent prepared Stipulation of Settlement agreements (piggyback agreements) with respect to the Plastics Recycling project so that taxpayers who did not wish to litigate their cases individually could agree to be bound by the results of the test cases. Respondent's counsel offered the piggyback agreements to taxpayers involved in the Plastics Recycling project, including petitioners in docket No. 1173-88. Respondent and petitioners executed the piggyback agreement for docket No. 1173-88 and filed it with the Court on September 12, 1988. Rosenberg signed the piggyback agreement on behalf of petitioners. In the piggyback agreement, petitioners agreed to be bound by the results of the three test cases. The agreement is 6 The summary of the background of the plastics recycling litigation, the selection of Provizer v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1992-177, as a test case, and of the preparation of the piggyback agreement is taken from our opinions in Estate of Satin v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1994-435, and Fisher v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1994-434. Petitioners have attached to their motion copies of these cases and of the piggyback agreement executed by Jerome R. Rosenberg and rely upon such materials in their memorandum. Respondent has not specifically objected to the accuracy of the documentation. However, again we refer to such materials only to explain petitioners' argument for completeness. As noted above, the underlying documents are not part of the record as stipulated exhibits or otherwise, and we would be required to conduct further proceedings if we were to grant petitioners' motion for leave.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