Philippe and Nadine Grelsamer - Page 76

                                       - 76 -                                         
          those cases.  In effect, petitioners seek to resurrect the                  
          piggyback agreement offer and/or the settlement offer they                  
          previously failed to accept.                                                
               Petitioners contend that under the principle of "equality,"            
          the Commissioner has a duty of consistency toward similarly                 
          situated taxpayers and cannot tax one and not tax another without           
          some rational basis for the difference.  United States v. Kaiser,           
          363 U.S. 299, 308 (1960) (Frankfurter, J., concurring opinion);             
          see Baker v. United States, 748 F.2d 1465 (11th Cir. 1984);                 
          Farmers' & Merchants' Bank v. United States, 476 F.2d 406 (4th              
          Cir. 1973).  According to petitioners, the principle of equality            
          precludes the Commissioner from making arbitrary distinctions               
          between like cases.  See Baker v. Commissioner, 787 F.2d 637, 643           
          (D.C. Cir. 1986), vacating 83 T.C. 822 (1984).                              
               The different tax treatment accorded petitioners and Miller            
          was not arbitrary or irrational.  While petitioners and Miller              
          both invested in the Plastics Recycling project, their actions              
          with respect to such investments provide a rational basis for               
          treating them differently.  Miller foreclosed any potential                 
          liability for increased interest in his cases by making payment             
          of the tax prior to December 31, 1984; no interest accrued after            
          that date.  In contrast, petitioners made no such payment and               
          they conceded that the increased rate of interest under section             
          6621(c) applies in their cases.  Liability for the increased rate           
          of interest is the principal difference between the settlement in           




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