- 74 -
claim to have accepted the offer timely, so they effectively
rejected it. We discuss the background matters, apparently not
disputed by the parties, for the sake of completeness. As we
have noted, granting petitioners' motions for leave would require
further proceedings.
On or about February 1988, a settlement offer (the Plastics
Recycling project settlement offer or the offer) was made
available by respondent in all docketed Plastics Recycling cases,
and subsequently in all nondocketed cases. Baratelli v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1994-484.7 Pursuant to the offer,
taxpayers had 30 days to accept the following terms: (1)
Allowance of a deduction for 50 percent of the amount of the cash
investment in the venture in the year(s) of investment to the
extent of loss claimed; (2) Government concession of the
substantial understatement of tax penalties under section 6661
and the negligence additions to tax under section 6653(a)(1) and
(2); (3) taxpayer concession of the section 6659 addition to tax
for valuation overstatement and the increased rate of interest
under section 6621; and (4) execution of a closing agreement
(Form 906) stating the settlement and resolving the entire matter
for all years. Petitioners assert that the Plastics Recycling
7 Although the records do not include a settlement offer to
petitioners, petitioners have attached to their motions for
decision a copy of a settlement offer to another taxpayer with
respect to a plastics recycling case, and respondent has not
disputed the accuracy of the statement of the plastics recycling
settlement offer.
Page: Previous 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011