- 6 -
Respondent, through affidavits from the employees involved,
has stated that at the time of the February 21, 2006, telephone
conference: (1) Ms. Gonzalez and her supervisor had not
recommended or approved a settlement of part or all of the Omaha
case; (2) Mr. Carriger was unfamiliar with the specifics of the
settlement offer and the exchanges between Appeals and
petitioners’ representatives; (3) the provisions of Rev. Proc.
87-24, 1987-1 C.B. 720, direct that Appeals attempt to settle
cases and that Government counsel normally does not settle cases
until the administrative files are returned to Government
counsel; (4) petitioners’ counsel contacted Ms. Gonzales 6 days
after the February 21 telephone conference and asked whether she
had made a determination about the January 6 offer; (5)
petitioners did not confirm the alleged oral settlement by means
of a followup letter or memorandum reflecting the terms thereof;
(6) petitioners’ counsel agreed to a continuance of petitioners’
Phoenix cases on February 15, 2006 (6 days before the February 21
teleconference).
Between the February 21 and the March 2, 2006,
conversations, Mr. Carriger left a message for Mr. Stientjes
advising that, in addition to the cash contribution issue raised
in the notice of deficiency, respondent intended to affirmatively
raise a non-cash-contribution issue in the Omaha case that was
the same as or similar to the issues pending in petitioners’
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011