Vincent and Clotilde Farrell, Jr. - Page 13

                                       - 13 -                                         
          Recycling project as well as the increased rate of interest under           
          section 6621(c).  Issues concerning the additions to tax under              
          sections 6659 and 6653(a)(1) and (2) were not resolved.                     
               On August 25, 1994, this Court filed opinions in two                   
          Plastics Recycling cases:  Estate of Satin v. Commissioner, supra           
          and Fisher v. Commissioner, supra.  At issue in the Estate of               
          Satin and Fisher cases were two piggyback agreements virtually              
          identical to the one executed by petitioners and respondent for             
          docket No. 1173-88.  Noting that the cases involved "peculiar, if           
          not unique circumstances", this Court held that the piggyback               
          agreements entitled the taxpayers to the same settlement as had             
          been reached in the Miller cases.  Docket No. 1173-88 has                   
          subsequently been settled pursuant to the piggyback agreement.              
          Respondent represents that administrative settlements have been             
          made with taxpayers in each of the relatively few cases, like               
          docket No. 1173-88, in which the taxpayer executed a piggyback              
          agreement like those discussed in Estate of Satin v.                        
          Commissioner, supra, and Fisher v. Commissioner, supra.                     
          3.  Discussion                                                              
               The motion for entry of decision here under consideration              
          raises the principle of equal treatment of similarly situated               
          taxpayers, the interpretation of a Stipulation of Settlement                
          entered into by petitioners and respondent in a separate case               
          (docket No. 1173-88), and equitable estoppel.  In effect,                   
          petitioners seek to resurrect the settlement offer they rejected.           




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