- 7 -
to all investors the most favorable settlement terms that ever
were offered to any of the investors.
More specifically, movants allege --
(1) that the no-cash settlements that were agreed to by
movants herein during 1994 and later years were premised
on the erroneous fact that no better settlements were
available to investors;
(2) that during 1994 and later years, when the no-cash
settlements that movants now seek to set aside were
entered into, movants and their counsel allegedly were
not aware of the prior more favorable cash settlements
that other taxpayers had entered into during 1986, 1987,
and 1988; and
(3) that under the TEFRA partnership provisions movants
herein, during 1994 and later years, should have been
and should now be allowed to settle their tax
adjustments relating to their investments in the Elektra
Hemisphere tax shelters consistently with the cash
settlements offered in prior years.
Movants further allege the existence of "a pervasive and
manufactured conspiracy" among respondent’s counsel to deprive
movants herein and other taxpayers of proper TEFRA partnership
settlement procedures. Movants contend that the allegedly
defective settlement procedures respondent utilized in obtaining
settlements with movants herein affected thousands of investors in
the Elektra Hemisphere tax shelters.
In response, respondent emphasizes that the no-cash
settlements that movants agreed to and that they now seek to
disavow are based on and are consistent with the results of the
above-cited test cases. Respondent argues that movants herein
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