- 90 -- 90 -
such a recital in its decisions." This argument by petitioners
is entirely conjectural and is not supported by the documentation
on which counsel relies. In fact, the recital that no increased
interest under section 6621(c) was due in the Miller cases was an
express term of the settlement documents in those cases and
apparently included in the decisions for completeness and
accuracy. There is nothing in the records in the present cases,
or in the Court's opinions in Estate of Satin v. Commissioner,
T.C. Memo. 1994-435, or Fisher v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1994-
434, or in any of the material submitted to us in these cases
that would indicate that the Millers were "otherwise subject to
the penalty interest provisions". Petitioners' argument is based
on a false premise.
We find that petitioners and Miller were treated equally to
the extent they were similarly situated, and differently to the
extent they were not. Miller foreclosed the applicability of the
section 6621(c) increased rate of interest in his cases, while
petitioners concede it applies in their cases. Petitioners
failed to accept a piggyback settlement offer that would have
entitled them to the settlement reached in the Miller cases, and
also did not enter into a settlement offer made to them prior to
trial of a test case. In contrast, prior to trial Miller
negotiated for himself and accepted an offer that was essentially
the same as the Plastics Recycling project settlement offer that
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