- 30 -
why their case should not be decided the same way as the test
cases. See, e.g., Krause v. Commissioner, 99 T.C. 132 (1992),
affd. sub nom. Hildebrand v. Commissioner, 28 F.3d 1024 (10th
Cir. 1994); Acierno v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1997-441;
Karlsson v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1997-432. Using the order
to show cause procedure to dispose of nontest cases in a tax
shelter project is more cumbersome and consumes more time and
judicial, administrative, and private party resources than using
piggyback agreements. As discussed in greater detail below, the
Court used the test case procedure in the Kersting project; the
vast majority of the Kersting project participants signed
piggyback agreements. See infra pp. 34-41.
2. National Office Tax Shelter Branch Functions
The Tax Shelter Branch, established by the Office of Chief
Counsel in the National Office, was given the responsibilities of
coordinating the examination, appeals, and litigation functions
and of overseeing tax shelter projects from the National Office
perspective. The Tax Shelter Branch provided advice and prepared
material for use by the field in tax shelter cases, reviewed
legal briefs, monitored the status of tax shelter case inventory,
and prepared reports for Internal Revenue Service executives.
The Tax Shelter Branch monitored tax shelter projects by
reviewing and extracting information from quarterly tax shelter
reports that were required to be submitted by the project
attorney; i.e., the District Counsel trial attorney with primary
responsibility for the project. Each project attorney was
Page: Previous 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011