- 59 -
for treating them differently. Miller foreclosed any potential
liability for increased interest in his cases by making payments
prior to December 31, 1984; no interest accrued after that date.
In contrast, petitioners made no such payment, and they conceded
that the increased rate of interest under section 6621(c) applies
in their case. Liability for the increased rate of interest is
the principal difference between the settlement in the Miller
cases, which petitioners declined when they failed to accept the
piggyback agreement offer, and the settlement offer that
petitioners also failed to accept.
Petitioners argue that section 6621(c) must have been an
issue in the Miller cases since each of the decisions recites
"That there is no increased interest due from the petitioner[s]
for the taxable years [at issue] under the provisions of IRC
section 6621(c)." According to petitioners, "if the Millers were
not otherwise subject to the penalty interest provisions because
of the particular timing of their tax payments, there would have
been no need for the Court to include 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 instant case, or in the Court's
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