Malcolm I. Lewin and Trina Lewin - Page 43

                                       - 43 -                                         
          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.                                                                      
               After the lead counsel for the taxpayers and respondent                
          agreed upon the test cases, respondent prepared a piggyback                 
          agreement with respect to the Plastics Recycling project so that            
          taxpayers who did not wish to litigate their cases individually             
          could agree to be bound by the results of the test cases.  Fisher           
          v. Commissioner, supra; Estate of Satin v. Commissioner, supra.             
          The piggyback agreement, as set forth in the Fisher and Estate of           
          Satin cases, provides as follows:                                           
               With respect to all adjustments in respondent’s notice                 
               of deficiency relating to the Plastics Recycling tax                   
               shelter, the parties stipulate the following terms of                  
               settlement:                                                            





Page:  Previous  30  31  32  33  34  35  36  37  38  39  40  41  42  43  44  45  46  47  48  49  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011