- 55 -
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 this case, petitioners' motion for
leave is not well founded. Farrell v. Commissioner, supra.
Even if petitioners' motion for leave were granted, the
arguments set forth in their motion for decision and the attached
memorandum, lodged with this Court, are invalid and such motion
would be denied. Therefore, and for reasons set forth in more
detail below, petitioners' motion for leave shall be denied.
Some of our discussion of background and circumstances
underlying petitioners' motion 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' motion 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
cases. We held in Estate of Satin and Fisher that the terms of
the piggyback agreement bound the parties to the results in all
Page: Previous 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011