- 77 -
the Miller cases, which petitioners declined when they failed to
accept the piggyback agreement offer, and the settlement offer
that petitioners also failed to accept.
Petitioners argue that section 6621(c) must have been an
issue in the Miller cases since each of the decisions in Miller
recites "That there is no increased interest due from the
petitioner[s] for the taxable years [at issue] under the
provisions of IRC section 6621(c)." According to petitioners,
"if the Millers were not otherwise subject to the penalty
interest provisions because of the particular timing of their tax
payments, there would have been no need for the Court to include
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 on the record 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.
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