Philippe and Nadine Grelsamer - Page 75

                                       - 75 -                                         
          project settlement offer was extended to them, but they do not              
          claim to have accepted the offer timely, so they effectively                
          rejected it.                                                                
               In December 1988, the Miller cases were disposed of by                 
          settlement agreement between the taxpayers and respondent.8                 
          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 sections 6661 and 6653(a).  The increased            
          interest under section 6621(c), premised solely upon Miller's               
          interest in the recyclers for the taxable years at issue, was not           
          applicable because Miller made payments prior to December 31,               
          1984, so no interest accrued after that time.  Respondent did not           
          notify petitioners or any other taxpayers of the disposition of             
          the Miller cases.  Estate of Satin v. Commissioner, supra; Fisher           
          v. Commissioner, supra.                                                     
               Petitioners argue that they are similarly situated to                  
          Miller, the taxpayer in the Miller cases, and that pursuant to              
          the principle of "equality" they are therefore entitled to the              
          same settlement agreement executed by respondent and Miller in              


          8    Although it is not otherwise a part of the record in these             
          cases, respondent attached copies of the Miller closing agreement           
          and disclosure waiver to her objection to petitioners' motion for           
          leave, and petitioners do not dispute the accuracy of the                   
          document.                                                                   




Page:  Previous  59  60  61  62  63  64  65  66  67  68  69  70  71  72  73  74  75  76  77  78  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011