- 48 -
District Court held that on the record before it, the issue of
negligence could not be decided as a matter of law but rather was
an issue to be decided by the trier of fact.
In the present cases, we have addressed the issue of
negligence as an issue of fact, which we have decided based on
the totality of the facts and circumstances presented at trial.
Thus, Klein v. United States, supra, is distinguishable from the
present cases.
E. Conclusion
Upon consideration of the entire record, we hold that
petitioners are liable for the additions to tax for negligence
under section 6653(a)(1) and (2). Respondent is therefore
sustained on this issue.
II. The Plastics Recycling Project Settlement Offer
Petitioners contend that they are entitled to the terms of
the Plastics Recycling Project Settlement Offer. See Davenport
Recycling Associates v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1998-347, affd.
220 F.3d 1255 (11th Cir. 2000).
It should be recalled that in October 1988, respondent made
the settlement offer, in writing, to Winer as the tax matters
partner of the Whitman partnership. Respondent’s transmittal
letter stated that the settlement offer would not be repeated and
that the offer would expire 30 days from the date of the letter.
Winer did not accept the settlement offer on behalf of the
Page: Previous 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011