- 74 -
such a recital in its decisions." This argument by petitioners
is entirely conjectural and is not supported by the documentation
on which counsel relies. In fact, the recital that no increased
interest under section 6621(c) was due in the Miller cases was an
express term of the settlement documents in those cases and
apparently included in the decisions for completeness and
accuracy. There is nothing on the record in the present cases,
or in the Court's opinions in Estate of Satin v. Commissioner,
T.C. Memo. 1994-435, or Fisher v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1994-
434, or in any of the material submitted to us in these cases
that would indicate that the Millers were "otherwise subject to
the penalty interest provisions". Petitioners' argument is based
on a false premise.
We find that petitioners and Miller were treated equally to
the extent they were similarly situated and differently to the
extent they were not. Miller foreclosed the applicability of the
section 6621(c) increased rate of interest in his cases, while
petitioners concede it applies in their cases. Petitioners
failed to accept a piggyback settlement offer that would have
entitled them to the settlement reached in the Miller cases, and
also rejected a settlement offer made to them prior to trial of a
test case. In contrast, Miller negotiated for himself and
accepted an offer that was essentially the same as the Plastics
Recycling project settlement offer rejected by petitioners prior
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