- 69 -
Consequently, under the circumstances here, at this late date in
the litigation proceedings, long after trial and briefing and
after the issuance of numerous opinions on issues and facts
closely analogous to those in these cases, petitioners' motions
for leave are not well founded. Farrell v. Commissioner, supra.
Even if petitioners' motions for leave were granted, the
arguments set forth in each of petitioners' motions for decision
and attached memoranda, lodged with this Court, are invalid and
the motions would be denied. Therefore, and for reasons set
forth in more detail below, petitioners' motions for leave shall
be denied.
Some of our discussion of background and circumstances
underlying petitioners' motions is drawn from documents submitted
by the parties and findings of this Court in two earlier
decisions. See Estate of Satin v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1994-
435; Fisher v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1994-434. These matters
are not disputed by the parties. We discuss the background
matters for the sake of completeness. As we have noted, granting
petitioners' motions for leave would require further proceedings.
The Estate of Satin and Fisher cases involved Stipulation of
Settlement agreements (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:
Provizer v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1992-177, and the two Miller
Page: Previous 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011