- 71 -
(Form 906) stating the settlement and resolving the entire matter
for all years.23 Petitioners assert that the Plastics Recycling
project settlement offer was extended to them, but they do not
claim to have accepted the offer timely, so they effectively
rejected it.24
In December 1988, the Miller cases were disposed of by
settlement agreement between the taxpayers and respondent.25
This Court entered decisions based upon those settlements on
December 22, 1988. The settlement provided that the taxpayers in
the Miller cases were liable for the addition to tax under
section 6659 for valuation overstatement, but not for the
23 The records do not include a settlement offer to
petitioners. However, petitioners in each case have attached to
their motions for decision a copy of a settlement offer to
another taxpayer with respect to a plastics recycling case, and
respondent has not disputed the accuracy of the statement of the
plastics recycling settlement offer.
24 In each of their motions for decision, petitioners state,
"Respondent formulated a standard settlement position which was
extended to all taxpayers having docketed or non-docketed cases
in the plastics recycling group, including Petitioner."
(Emphasis added.)
In docket No. 10802-89 (the Weber case), respondent attached
to the objection to the Webers' motion for leave a copy of a Form
5402, Appeals Transmittal Memorandum and Supporting Statement,
which states that the Webers refused a settlement offer with
respect to Clearwater.
25 Although it is not otherwise a part of the records in these
cases, respondent attached copies of the Miller closing agreement
and disclosure waiver to respondent's objections to petitioners'
motions for leave, and petitioners do not dispute the accuracy of
the document.
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