- 43 -
claims he is in essentially the same position as the taxpayers in
Fisher v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1994-434, and Estate of Satin
v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1994-435. Additionally, petitioner
argues that in the stipulation of facts in the present case, “the
parties unequivocally stipulated that petitioner agreed to be
bound to the lead cases under the piggyback agreement. (Supp.
Stip., pars. 34-35).” Respondent disagrees with these arguments,
and we agree with respondent.
In Fisher and Estate of Satin this Court summarized the
background of the piggyback agreement in the Plastics Recycling
group of cases. On June 12, 1987, this Court ordered that the
lead counsel for the taxpayers in the Plastics Recycling cases
and respondent designate test or lead cases which would present
all issues involved in the Plastics Recycling cases. In a letter
dated August 14, 1987, respondent notified the Court that lead
counsel for the taxpayers and respondent had selected the
following docketed cases as the lead cases in the Plastics
Recycling group: (1) Fine v. Commissioner, docket No. 35437-85;
(2) Miller v. Commissioner, docket No. 10382-86; and (3) Miller
v. Commissioner, docket No. 10383-86. In early 1988, the Fine
case concluded without trial. The parties, thereafter, selected,
and the Court designated, the case of Provizer v. Commissioner,
docket No. 27141-86, as a lead case along with the two Miller
cases.
Page: Previous 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011