- 70 -
cases. We held in Estate of Satin and Fisher 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 timely, so they effectively
rejected it.22
On or about February of 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. Pursuant to the offer,
taxpayers had 30 days to accept the following terms: (1)
Allowance of a deduction for 50 percent of the amount of the cash
investment in the venture in the year(s) of investment to the
extent of loss claimed; (2) Government concession of the
substantial understatement of tax penalties under section 6661
and the negligence additions to tax under section 6653(a)(1) and
(2); (3) taxpayer concession of the section 6659 addition to tax
for valuation overstatement and the increased rate of interest
under section 6621; and (4) execution of a closing agreement
22 In each of their motions for decision, petitioners state:
"After the lead counsel for taxpayers and Respondent had agreed
upon the designation of the lead cases, Respondent's counsel
prepared piggyback agreements and offered them to counsel for the
taxpayers in this case and to other taxpayers." (Emphasis
added.)
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