- 5 -
dates beyond which a particular settlement position would no
longer be available.
Under respondent’s settlement position as of 1986, investors
generally were allowed tax deductions reflecting the full amount
of their cash out-of-pocket invested in the respective Elektra
Hemisphere tax shelter, and no penalties or additions to tax were
imposed other than increased interest under section 6621(c) or
its predecessor section 6621(d) (hereinafter referred to as the
cash settlement). Petitioners herein did not agree to settle the
tax deficiencies and additions to tax that respondent had
determined against them relating to their investments in the
Elektra Hemisphere tax shelters on that basis. Rather,
petitioners waited until after the opinion in Krause v.
Commissioner, supra, was rendered in 1992 and agreed to settle at
that time, or in later years, on the basis of respondent’s then
pending no-cash settlement position. Not only did petitioners
agree to settle, but petitioners signed stipulated decision
documents reflecting the no-cash settlement position, and such
decision documents were entered by the Court and are now final.
Petitioners allege that a structural defect or a fraud on
the Court occurred in settling these cases and that respondent,
under the TEFRA partnership statutory provisions, had a duty of
consistency to treat all taxpayers consistently and to make
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011