Michael A. Lacher and Judith W. Lacher - Page 16




                                        - 16 -                                          
          T.C. 28 (1992); Bernard v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1995-332                  
          (taxpayer waited until she lost the substantive issues before she             
          filed a subsequent motion to raise a new issue.); Estate of                   
          Allinson v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1994-304 (Court denied                   
          motion filed 7 years after stipulation of settlement executed).               
               Lastly, granting petitioners’ motion would result in undue               
          prejudice to respondent.  As we have noted, petitioners are now               
          attempting to raise a new argument 12 years after the standard                
          settlement offer was made available, 11 years after they filed                
          their original petition and 6 years after this case was partially             
          tried.  Petitioners seek relief from the penalty under section                
          6653(a) without regard to whether the penalty is appropriate                  
          under the facts of this case.  They seek relief from the penalty              
          by raising the equality of treatment argument many years after                
          the pleadings and partial trial and without convincing evidence               
          that they have been treated unfairly.                                         
               Petitioner has delayed trial and even been absent from a                 
          partial trial.  He has consistently refused to settle the case                
          but has waited until the issues have been tried many times by                 
          others under closely analogous facts and circumstances.  Now                  
          after many years of avoiding, delaying, or refusing settlement or             
          trial, petitioner seeks to obtain for himself the benefit of a                
          settlement offer made many years ago before the issues in this                
          case had been tried.  The prejudice to respondent is obvious; the             






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