- 83 -
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,
supra, or Fisher v. Commissioner, supra, 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.
We find that petitioners and Miller were treated equally to
the extent they were similarly situated, and differently to the
extent they were not. Miller foreclosed the applicability of the
section 6621(c) increased rate of interest in his cases, while
petitioners concede it applies in their cases. Petitioners
failed to accept a piggyback settlement offer that would have
entitled them to the settlement reached in the Miller cases, and
also did not enter into a settlement offer made to them prior to
trial of a test case. In contrast, Miller negotiated and
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