- 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