- 15 -
represented in this case by counsel who for many years have been
or should have been aware of the settlement positions that were
made available by respondent.2 Additionally, on December 19,
1991, and June 1, 1992, respondent offered piggyback agreements
to petitioners. On both occasions, petitioners failed to accept
respondent’s offer and did not submit any counter offer. These
circumstances support the conclusion that petitioners never had
any intention of settling this case.
Petitioners’ motion for leave to amend their petition again
is also untimely. Presently, they are seeking to amend their
petition for a second time, more than 11 years after they filed
their original petition. Moreover, petitioners’ counsel for many
years have been or should have been aware of the settlement
agreements that were made available to participants in Plastics
Recycling cases. Accordingly, petitioners had ample time to
raise this argument. This Court has consistently refused to
reward such dilatory behavior. See Russo v. Commissioner, 98
2 Petitioner represented himself and his wife until Jan. 26,
1994. On that date, Hugh Janow (Janow) entered his appearance in
the case. On Aug. 8, 1994, Janow withdrew from the case and
petitioners’ current counsel, Stuart Smith (Smith), entered his
appearance. Smith has tried numerous Plastics Recycling cases.
See, e.g., Sann v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1997-259, affd. sub
nom. Addington v. Commissioner, 205 F.3d 54 (2d Cir. 2000);
Jaroff v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1996-527; Gollin v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1996-454. In Jaroff and Gollin, Smith
specifically referred to the standard settlement offer. See
Jaroff v. Commissioner, supra n.17; Gollin v. Commissioner, supra
n.21.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011