- 18 -
taxpayers of the settlement prior to the resolution of the tried
case, the taxpayers were entitled to entry of decision in their
cases consistent with the terms offered in the settled cases.
Although the present cases share some of the characteristics
of the Fisher and Estate of Satin cases, there is at least one
significant difference. Specifically, the piggyback agreements
in the Fisher and Estate of Satin cases expressly stated that the
taxpayers agreed to be bound by the resolution of the test cases,
"whether by litigation or settlement". In contrast, the
piggyback agreements in the present cases do not mention the
settlement of a test case as a basis for decision in the
piggyback cases. It follows that the settlement of some or all
of the test cases, unlike the settlements on which the taxpayers
relied in Fisher and Estate of Satin, would not provide a basis
for entry of decision in any of the Kersting group cases in which
the parties had entered into a piggyback agreement.
Finally, we turn to petitioners' alternative argument that
public policy concerns dictate that the Commissioner maintain
consistency in settling cases with taxpayers in cases involving
common questions of law and fact. Petitioners cite section
6224(c), which provides for consistency in the settlement of
cases that are subject to the unified partnership audit and
litigation procedures (sections 6221 through 6233) enacted by
Congress as part of the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011