- 87 -- 87 -
claim to have accepted the offer timely, so they effectively
rejected it.21
In December 1988, the Miller cases were disposed of by
settlement agreement between the taxpayers and respondent.22
This Court entered decisions based upon those settlements on
December 22, 1988. The settlement provided that the taxpayers in
the Miller cases were liable for the addition to tax under
section 6659 for valuation overstatement, but not for the
additions to tax under the provisions of section 6661 and section
6653(a). The increased interest under section 6621(c), premised
21 In each of their motions for decision, petitioners state:
"Respondent formulated a standard settlement position which was
extended to all taxpayers having docketed or non-docketed cases
in the plastics recycling group, including Petitioner." (Emphasis
added.)
In docket No. 16922-90, respondent attached to her objection
to petitioners' motion for leave a copy of an Appeals Transmittal
Memorandum and Supporting Statement, dated Apr. 26, 1990, which
relates that the Gollins were offered and rejected the offer.
The Gollins have not disputed the accuracy of its contents.
In docket No. 19612-90, respondent attached to her objection
to petitioners' motion for leave a copy of a letter, dated Apr.
19, 1988, extending the offer to petitioners Fishbach in another
plastics recycling case, docket No. 34890-87. Also attached to
respondent's objection is a copy of the Fishbachs' reply letter,
which rejected the offer but stated their desire to stipulate to
be bound to the test cases. Respondent states in her objection
that docket No. 34890-87 is among the cases in which she made
administrative abatements of the negligence additions to tax and
increased interest. See Farrell v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo.
1996-295. The Fishbachs have not disputed the accuracy of the
copies of the settlement offer in docket No. 34890-87, their
reply letter, or respondent's subsequent abatements in that case.
22 Although it is not otherwise a part of the record in the
Gollin and Fishbach cases, respondent attached copies of the
Miller closing agreement and disclosure waiver to her objections
to petitioners' motion for leave, and petitioners do not dispute
the accuracy of the document.
Page: Previous 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011