- 3 -
are as follows:
(1) Whether petitioners are liable for additions to tax
under section 6653(a)(1) and (2) for negligence or intentional
disregard of rules or regulations. We hold that petitioners are
so liable.
(2) Whether petitioners are entitled to the terms of the
Plastics Recycling Project Settlement Offer proffered by
respondent in October 1988 to the tax matters partner of Whitman
Recycling Associates. We hold that petitioners are not so
entitled.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Some of the facts have been stipulated, and they are so
found. The stipulated facts and attached exhibits are
incorporated herein by this reference. Petitioners resided in
Plymouth, Michigan, at the time that each of their petitions was
filed with the Court.
1(...continued)
Moreover, it would appear that petitioners have abandoned
their contention regarding the statute of limitations (the so-
called Davenport issue) in view of the recent affirmance of this
Court’s opinion on that issue by the Court of Appeals for the
Eleventh Circuit. See Davenport Recycling Associates v.
Commissioner, 220 F.3d 1255 (11th Cir. 2000), affg. T.C. Memo.
1998-347; see also Klein v. United States, 86 F. Supp.2d 690
(E.D. Mich. 1999); Clark v. United States, 68 F. Supp.2d 1333,
1342-1346 (N.D. Ga. 1999); Kohn v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1999-
150. However, if we are mistaken in this regard, then we refer
the parties to paragraphs 1 and 22 of the stipulation of facts,
and we decide the Davenport issue in respondent’s favor based on
the foregoing precedent.
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