- 48 -
that settlement, submitted to respondent a clarification that SAB
Foam did not wish to be bound by the settlement and, therefore,
withdrew any statement of intention to be bound by any other
case.
The facts of this case are that petitioner’s TMP did not
execute the piggyback agreement. Instead he made it clear that
he did not wish to settle the case but to rely upon the results
of litigation. Petitioner’s unpersuasive argument is that, now
that the litigation of the lead case and many others has been
decided unfavorably to his position, he should be considered to
have accepted the piggyback agreement that his TMP explicitly
rejected.
Additionally, petitioner argues that a portion of the
stipulation of facts amounts to a concession by respondent’s
counsel that petitioner is 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 pp. 14-15.]
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