- 79 -
(piggyback agreements) made available to taxpayers in the
Plastics Recycling project, whereby taxpayers could agree to be
bound by the results of three test cases: the Provizer case and
the two Miller cases. We held in the Estate of Satin and Fisher
cases that the terms of the piggyback agreement bound the parties
to the results in all three lead cases, not just the Provizer
case. Petitioners assert that the piggyback agreement was
extended to them, but they do not claim to have accepted the
offer, 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' motion 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. 1994-484.8 Pursuant to the offer,
taxpayers had 30 days to accept the following terms:
8 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 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011