- 46 -
that the litigation of the lead case and many others has been
decided unfavorably to their position, they should be considered
to have accepted the piggyback agreement that their TMP
explicitly rejected.
Additionally, petitioners argue that a portion of the
stipulation of facts amounts to a concession by respondent’s
counsel that petitioners are entitled to the Miller settlement.
The stipulation paragraphs are as follows:
34. On September 28, 1988 Robert L Steele, on behalf
of the Tax Matters Partner of SAB Foam Recycling
Associates, filed a protest against the adjustments
to the 1982 and 1983 tax years proposed by the
Internal Revenue Service resulting from an examination
of SAB Foam Recycling Associates. In such protest the
Tax Matters Partner of SAB Foam Recycling Associates
agreed to follow the Tax Court’s decision in the
following lead cases: Miller v. Commissioner,
Docket No. 10382-89; Miller v. Commissioner, Docket No.
10383-86; and Provizer v. Commissioner, Docket No.
27141-86. A copy of the protest of the Tax Matters
Partner of SAB Foam Recycling Associates dated
September 28, 1988 is attached hereto and marked as
Exhibit 10-J [See supra p. 14.]
35. On January 20, 1989 Stuart Becker, as the
Tax Matters Partner of SAB Foam Recycling Associates,
sent a letter to the District Director of the Internal
Revenue Service withdrawing the September 28, 1988
agreement to be bound by the lead cases. A copy of the
January 20, 1989 letter is attached hereto as Exhibit
11-J. [See supra pp. 14-15.]
The stipulation paragraphs quoted above merely summarize the
language of the protest letter and the withdrawal letter and
refer to attached exhibits for the specific language. The
language of the stipulation does not support the conclusion that
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