- 87 -
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
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.31
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
31 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 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011