- 4 -
government views as its hazards. Although we feel that
the right answer given the facts is that the taxpayers
are entitled to the deduction in full, we recognize
that as a practical matter proving that entitlement at
this point through litigation would likely be cost-
prohibitive.
Please contact me with any questions or to discuss. I
would appreciate a response by the end of the month.
Shortly thereafter, on January 26, 2006, Ms. Durning moved to
continue the trial of the Phoenix cases, and the Court gave
petitioners until February 21, 2006, to respond to respondent’s
continuance motion.3
Between January 6 and February 21, 2006, petitioners’
attorney, on several occasions, unsuccessfully attempted to
contact Ms. Gonzalez by telephone. On February 21, 2006,
Attorney Robert Stientjes, a counsel for petitioners, contacted
Mr. Carriger, counsel for respondent in the Omaha case, to
solicit a response to the January 6, 2006, offer made to Ms.
Gonzalez.
At this point, the parties’ allegations as to what
transpired are diametrically opposed. Petitioners contend that,
during the February 21, 2006, telephone conversation, Mr.
3 Although petitioners attempt to link respondent’s
continuance motion in the Phoenix cases to the Omaha case and the
purported acceptance of their offer to settle, the circumstances
we consider do not support such a connection. Even if
petitioners could show or believe such a connection existed, we
do not find that fact decisive one way or the other with respect
to whether there was a meeting of the minds and a settlement of
the cash contribution issue or the Omaha case.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011