- 81 -
Mr. Sims and Mr. Chicoine and between Mr. McWade and
Mr. DeCastro. The enhanced 20-percent settlement offer reflected
the perceptions of Messrs. Sims and McWade that the evidentiary
issues raised by Chicoine and Hallett increased respondent's
risks of litigation.
The 20-percent settlement offer was not disseminated in
writing by either Mr. Sims or Mr. McWade. The existence of the
20-percent settlement offer became known, if at all, through a
combination of Mr. Kersting's letters to program participants
and calls that Mr. McWade received from Kersting program
participants. Messrs. Sims and McWade did not request approval
from or otherwise inform the National Office, Regional Counsel,
or the Appeals Office before making the 20-percent settlement
offer.
Following the February 1987 Maui session, the Honolulu
Appeals Office once again began to offer Kersting program
participants a deduction for their cash out-of-pocket expenses,
or if substantiation was not available, a reduction of the
deficiency by 7 percent, with a waiver of the additions under
section 6653(a)(1) and (2). The Honolulu Appeals Office did not
learn that Mr. McWade had negotiated 20-percent settlement offers
until mid-1988, following issuance of the Court's opinion in
Dixon I. At that time, the Honolulu Appeals Office determined
not to extend such offers because it saw no reason to deviate
from the official 7-percent project settlement offer.
Page: Previous 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011