- 6 -
during 1986, 1987, and 1988, agreed, including many investors who
had invested in the seven Denver-based Elektra Hemisphere
partnerships. Over the years, however, respondent’s settlement
position relating to the Elektra Hemisphere tax shelters has
changed, and terms of the settlement offers that respondent has
made available to investors have changed accordingly. As time
progressed and as the Krause v. Commissioner, supra, lead test
cases approached trial, respondent’s settlement position generally
became less favorable to investors and more favorable to
respondent. Each of respondent’s various settlement positions
contained time deadlines or termination dates beyond which a
particular settlement position would no longer be available to
investors.
As indicated, after the opinion in Krause v. Commissioner,
supra, was rendered by this Court, many of the movants herein
agreed to settle on the basis of respondent’s then pending no-cash
settlement position.
In the instant motions, movants allege that a structural
defect or a fraud on the Court occurred in obtaining from movants
the above-referenced no-cash settlements and that respondent had,
and has, under the TEFRA partnership provisions, a continuing duty
of consistency to treat all investors in the Elektra Hemisphere
tax shelters consistently and to affirmatively now make available
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011