Vincent and Clotilde Farrell, Jr. - Page 17

                                       - 17 -                                         
               Petitioners also argue that paragraph 4 of the piggyback               
          agreement extends the controlling case to all cases not expressly           
          a part of or referenced in the agreement, such as docket No.                
          28082-89.  Paragraph 4 provides:                                            
               If the adjustment is resolved in the CONTROLLING CASE                  
               in a manner which affects the same issue in other years                
               (e.g., * losses in later years or affects depreciation                 
               schedules), the resolution will apply to petitioner(s)'                
               later years as if the petitioner(s) in this case                       
               was/were the same as the taxpayer(s) in the CONTROLLING                
               CASE;  [Emphasis added.]                                               
          We disagree with petitioners' interpretation of paragraph 4.                
          Paragraph 4 merely provides that if the result in the controlling           
          case affects a continuing item in other or later years in the               
          controlling case, then the resolution will apply in the same                
          manner to other or later years of the same continuing item in               
          petitioners' case; it does not extend the result to other cases             
          not a part of the agreement.  See Conway v. Commissioner, T.C.              
          Memo. 1994-413 (interpreting a similar stipulation); sec.                   
          301.7121-1(b)(3) and (4), Proced. & Admin. Regs.  The piggyback             
          agreement is exclusively for docket No. 1173-88; no other case is           
          explicitly or implicitly referenced or incorporated therein.                
          Petitioners' motion is not supported by the piggyback agreement             
          for docket No. 1173-88.                                                     
               Finally, petitioners contend that the doctrine of equitable            
          estoppel should apply to bar respondent from assessing penalties            
          other than those assessed in the Miller cases.  We note that this           
          Court is a court of limited jurisdiction and lacks general                  




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