- 44 -
tax under section 6653(a) or increased interest for tax-motivated
transactions under section 6621(c) (Miller settlement). Fisher
v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1994-434; Estate of Satin v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1994-435. This Court decided Provizer
v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1992-177, on March 27, 1992. In our
Provizer opinion, and in the affirmance, all of the Plastics
Recycling issues were decided for respondent, including the
additions to tax under section 6653(a) and increased interest
under section 6621(c). Respondent did not notify any other
taxpayers of the settlement of the Miller cases. Respondent
ultimately attempted collection from the Fisher and Estate of
Satin taxpayers pursuant to our decision in the Provizer case and
paragraph 5 of the piggyback agreement set forth above. For
reasons explained more fully in our above-cited opinions, we held
that the taxpayers in the Fisher and Estate of Satin cases were
entitled to be bound by the Miller settlement.
Petitioners contend that the protest letter is the
equivalent of a piggyback agreement that would entitle them to
the Miller settlement. We disagree. The piggyback agreement is
an intricately developed contract with specific provisions
tailored to the Plastics Recycling group of cases. Only the
execution of a piggyback agreement by both petitioners and
respondent could reflect the parties’ mutual assent to settle the
instant case based on the disposition of the lead case. See
Page: Previous 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011