- 19 -
disposition of the Miller cases. Specifically, petitioners
maintain that respondent's failure to notify them of the Miller
settlement prior to issuing the notice of deficiency for this
case "effectively took from them the opportunity to have the
Miller settlement applied to * * * 1982."
However, there is no showing in the record that petitioners
ever had the opportunity to have the Miller settlement applied to
1982. Petitioners were not similarly situated to the Millers and
have conceded that section 6621(c) applies to this case. No
piggyback agreement was offered or executed in this case.
Instead, as petitioners themselves have argued, respondent
extended the Plastics Recycling project settlement offer to
petitioners. That offer mirrored the Miller settlement or was
more advantageous for taxpayers in all major respects except the
increased interest. Petitioners have not shown that knowledge of
the Miller settlement would have entitled them to escape
liability for the increased interest. We find that petitioners
were not adversely affected by respondent's actions, and
therefore that their motion is not supported on equitable
grounds.
In order to reflect the foregoing,
An appropriate order will be
issued denying petitioners' motion.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19
Last modified: May 25, 2011