- 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 thePage: Previous 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011