- 19 -
of 1982 (TEFRA), Pub. L. 97-248, sec. 402(a), 96 Stat. 324, 648,
and contend that respondent should be estopped to deny the
applicability of section 6224(c) in these cases.
Petitioners have cited no authority for the application of
section 6224(c) in cases other than TEFRA partnership
proceedings, and we are aware of none. Moreover, the public
policy concerns expressed by petitioners provide no basis for
disregarding the piggyback agreements, which bind the parties to
the Court's redetermination with respect to Kersting-related
interest deductions, as set forth in the Court's opinion in the
test cases. Petitioners are required to remain "in the hunt"
with all the other taxpayers in the Kersting group cases and
abide the outcome of the evidentiary hearing and resolution of
the various issues raised by the Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit in its remand of the test cases.
In sum, in the absence of any language in either of the
piggyback agreements that reasonably can be interpreted as
allowing petitioners to select a particular test case decision as
the basis for the decision to be entered in their cases, we will
deny petitioners' motions for summary judgment.
To reflect the foregoing,
Orders will be issued
denying petitioners' Motions for
Summary Judgment.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19
Last modified: May 25, 2011