T.C. Memo. 1996-295
UNITED STATES TAX COURT
VINCENT AND CLOTILDE FARRELL, JR., Petitioners v.
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
Docket No. 28082-89. Filed June 25, 1996.
Hugh Janow, for petitioners.
Barry J. Laterman, for respondent.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
WOLFE, Special Trial Judge: This matter is before the Court
on petitioners' Motion For Leave to File Motion for Decision
Ordering Relief From the Negligence Penalty and the Penalty Rate
of Interest and to File Supporting Memorandum of Law under Rule
50.1 Petitioners' motion for leave was filed with attached
1
All section references are to the Internal Revenue Code in
effect for the year at issue, unless otherwise indicated. All
Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and
Procedure.
- 2 -
exhibits on November 9, 1995. On the same date, petitioners'
motion for decision ordering relief from the negligence penalty
and the penalty rate of interest, with attachments, and
petitioners' memorandum in support of such motion were lodged
with the Court. Subsequently, respondent's objections, with
attachments, and memorandum in support thereof, were filed.
1. Background and Procedural Matters
This case is part of the Plastics Recycling group of cases.
The opinion in the lead case in that group, Provizer v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1992-177, affd. without published
opinion 996 F.2d 1216 (6th Cir. 1993), concerning the substance
of the transaction and the additions to tax, was filed on March
25, 1992. To date, we have decided more than 25 cases involving
various aspects of the Plastics Recycling transactions. Most
such cases primarily concern additions to tax for negligence and
valuation overstatement. When the present case was tried, on
March 31 and April 1, 1994, the opinion in Provizer v.
Commissioner, supra, had been issued. Before petitioners filed
their motion for leave, more than 12 additional opinions had been
filed concerning negligence and valuation overstatement in
Plastics Recycling cases.
Petitioners base their motion for leave largely upon
petitioners' alleged discovery, after the record was closed, of a
Stipulation of Settlement between the taxpayers in this case and
respondent in a different case for another year. Petitioners
- 3 -
claim such stipulation of settlement entitles them to the same
settlement as the taxpayer and the IRS reached in docket Nos.
10382-86 and 10383-86, each of which was styled Miller v.
Commissioner. Petitioners' present counsel argues that he was
not even aware of the settlement of the Miller cases until
September 1994. We note, however, that prior to the entry of
appearance of petitioners' present counsel in June 1992,
petitioners were represented by the same attorneys who tried the
Provizer case, represented the taxpayers in Miller v.
Commissioner, supra, and, for use in various other cases,
negotiated the terms of the stipulation of settlement on which
petitioners now seek to rely. Those attorneys, at least, should
have been well aware of the matters that petitioners' present
counsel considers newly discovered. Consequently, there is ample
reason for us to conclude that in the past, petitioners, acting
through well-informed counsel, rejected the idea of seeking the
same treatment accorded the taxpayer in the Miller case and
instead chose to proceed with litigation.
Moreover, even if we express no view as to petitioners'
present counsel's knowledge of the background facts or as to the
extent to which petitioners are charged with whatever knowledge
petitioners' prior counsel may have had concerning these matters,
at the very least, petitioners' present counsel seeks to raise a
new issue long after trial. Resolution of such issue plainly
would require a new trial. Such further trial "would be contrary
- 4 -
to the established policy of this Court to try all issues raised
in a case in one proceeding and to avoid piecemeal and protracted
litigation." Markwardt v. Commissioner, 64 T.C. 989, 998 (1975);
see also Robin Haft Trust v. Commissioner, 62 T.C. 145, 147
(1974). Consequently, under the circumstances here, at this late
date in the litigation proceedings, long after trial and
briefing, and after the issuance of numerous opinions on issues
and facts closely analogous to those in this case, we consider
that the practice of this Court would support, if not absolutely
require, denial of petitioners' motion for leave.
However, we do not rely solely on such procedural matters
for denying petitioners' motion for leave. Instead, we also have
considered the consequences of granting such motion. We conclude
that even if petitioners' motion for leave were granted, the
arguments set forth in petitioners' motion for decision and
attached memorandum, lodged with this Court, are without merit
and such motion would be denied.
Therefore, and for reasons set forth in more detail below,
petitioners' motion for leave will be denied.
2. Facts and Circumstances Relevant to Petitioners' Proposed
Motion for Decision
In a notice of deficiency dated August 25, 1989, respondent
determined a deficiency in petitioners' Federal income tax for
- 5 -
1982, plus increased interest under section 6621(c).2 In an
amendment to answer, respondent asserted a lesser deficiency for
1982 in the amount of $51,043, plus additions to tax in the
amount of $12,127 under section 6659 for valuation overstatement,
in the amount of $2,552 under section 6653(a)(1) for negligence,
and under section 6653(a)(2) in an amount equal to 50 percent of
the interest due on $50,278. Respondent also asserted that
$50,278 of the deficiency was subject to the increased rate of
interest under section 6621(c).
Petitioners contend that they should be relieved of any
liability for the negligence additions to tax and increased
interest based upon: (1) Respondent's treatment of a purportedly
similarly situated taxpayer in two other cases; (2) a Stipulation
of Settlement agreement executed by petitioners and respondent in
a separate Plastics Recycling case, docket No. 1173-88, which
concerned taxable years 1981 and 1978; and (3) equitable
estoppel.
Some of the facts have been stipulated and are so found.
The stipulated facts and attached exhibits are incorporated by
this reference. Vincent and Clotilde Farrell resided in Katonah,
New York, when their petition was filed.
2
Respondent also determined a deficiency in petitioners'
Federal income tax for 1980, and subsequently asserted a lesser
amount in an amendment to answer. On Apr. 22, 1992, respondent
and petitioners filed a Stipulation of Settled Issues resolving
all of the issues relating to taxable year 1980.
- 6 -
In 1980 Vincent Farrell (Farrell) acquired a limited
partnership interest in SAB Associates and in 1982 he acquired a
limited partnership interest in SAB Resource Reclamation
Associates (SAB Reclamation).3 SAB Reclamation purported to
lease four Sentinel EPE recyclers in a series of transactions
substantially identical to those in the Clearwater Group limited
partnership (Clearwater), the partnership considered in Provizer
v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1992-177. SAB Associates invested in
plastics recycling partnerships like SAB Reclamation and
Clearwater.4 On their 1981 and 1982 joint Federal income tax
returns, petitioners claimed their pro rata share of SAB
Associates' and SAB Reclamation's partnership losses and tax
credits.
In a notice of deficiency dated November 30, 1987,
respondent determined deficiencies in petitioners' 1981 Federal
income tax. Respondent disallowed petitioners' claimed losses
and tax credits related to SAB Associates and determined
additions to tax under section 6659 for valuation overstatement
and under section 6653(a)(1) and (2) for negligence. Respondent
also determined that interest on the deficiency accruing after
3
Petitioners own a 4.5-percent limited partnership interest
in SAB Reclamation. The record does not disclose the amount of
petitioners' percentage interest in SAB Associates.
4
SAB Associates was formed to engage in tax straddle
investments. During 1981, it ceased engaging in tax straddle
investments and changed its function to leasing Sentinel EPE
recyclers.
- 7 -
December 31, 1984, would be calculated at 120 percent of the
statutory rate under section 6621(c). In a second notice of
deficiency issued that same date, respondent determined a
deficiency in petitioners' 1978 Federal income tax due solely to
the disallowance of a credit carryback that arose in 1981. A
timely petition to this Court was filed by petitioners on January
19, 1988 (docket No. 1173-88).5 Petitioners' counsel at the time
was Jerome R. Rosenberg (Rosenberg).
Several months earlier, on June 12, 1987, this Court had
ordered that respondent and the lead counsel for the taxpayers in
Plastics Recycling cases designate lead cases that would present
all issues involved in the Plastics Recycling cases. The
following cases were selected: (1) Fine v. Commissioner, docket
No. 35437-85; (2) Miller v. Commissioner, docket No. 10382-86
(concerning taxable years 1982 and 1983); and (3) Miller v.
Commissioner, docket No. 10383-86 (concerning taxable years 1979
and 1980). In early 1988, the Fine case was concluded without
trial. In place of the Fine case, 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
5
Certain background facts and circumstances relating to
docket No. 1173-88 apparently are not disputed by the parties,
and we have discussed these matters for the sake of completeness.
As we have noted, granting petitioners' motion for leave would
require further proceedings.
- 8 -
two Miller cases. Estate of Satin v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo.
1994-435; Fisher v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1994-434.6
After the lead counsel for the taxpayers and respondent
agreed upon the test cases, respondent prepared Stipulation of
Settlement agreements (piggyback agreements) 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. Respondent's counsel offered the
piggyback agreements to taxpayers involved in the Plastics
Recycling project, including petitioners in docket No. 1173-88.
Respondent and petitioners executed the piggyback agreement for
docket No. 1173-88 and filed it with the Court on September 12,
1988. Rosenberg signed the piggyback agreement on behalf of
petitioners.
In the piggyback agreement, petitioners agreed to be bound
by the results of the three test cases. The agreement is
6
The summary of the background of the plastics recycling
litigation, the selection of Provizer v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo.
1992-177, as a test case, and of the preparation of the piggyback
agreement is taken from our opinions in Estate of Satin v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1994-435, and Fisher v. Commissioner,
T.C. Memo. 1994-434. Petitioners have attached to their motion
copies of these cases and of the piggyback agreement executed by
Jerome R. Rosenberg and rely upon such materials in their
memorandum. Respondent has not specifically objected to the
accuracy of the documentation. However, again we refer to such
materials only to explain petitioners' argument for completeness.
As noted above, the underlying documents are not part of the
record as stipulated exhibits or otherwise, and we would be
required to conduct further proceedings if we were to grant
petitioners' motion for leave.
- 9 -
virtually identical to the piggyback agreements set forth in
Estate of Satin v. Commissioner, supra, and Fisher v.
Commissioner, supra. The piggyback agreement executed by
petitioners, as attached to petitioners' motion for leave and
undisputed by respondent, provides:
STIPULATION OF SETTLEMENT FOR TAX SHELTER ADJUSTMENTS
With respect to all adjustment(s) in respondent's notice of
deficiency relating to the Plastics Recycling tax shelter, the parties
stipulate to the following terms of settlement:
1. THE ABOVE ADJUSTMENT IS ONE OF SEVERAL ISSUES IN DISPUTE
BETWEEN THE PARTIES. ALL OTHER ADJUSTMENTS WILL EITHER BE RESOLVED BY
THE PARTIES OR WILL BE SUBMITTED TO THE COURT FOR RESOLUTION;
2. The above adjustment(s), as specified in the preamble, shall
be determined by application of the same formula as that which resolved
the same tax shelter adjustment(s) with respect to the following
taxpayer(s):
Names(s): Harold M. Provizer and Joan Provizer v. Commissioner
of Internal Revenue
Tax Court Docket No.: 27141-86
Names(s): Elliot I. Miller v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue
Tax Court Docket No.: 10382-86
Names(s): Elliot I. Miller and Myra K. Miller v. Commissioner of
Internal Revenue
Tax Court Docket No.: 10383-86
(hereinafter the CONTROLLING CASE);
3. All issues involving the above adjustment(s) shall be
resolved as if the petitioner(s) in this case was/were the same as the
taxpayer(s) in the CONTROLLING CASE;
a. If the Court finds that any additions to tax or the
section 6621(c) interest are applicable to the underpayment
attributable to the above-designated tax shelter adjustment(s), the
resolution of the tax shelter issue and the applicability of such
addition to tax or interest to that tax shelter issue in the
CONTROLLING CASE, whether by litigation or settlement, shall apply to
petitioner(s) as if the petitioner(s) in this case was/were the same as
the taxpayer(s) in the CONTROLLING CASE;
4. If the adjustment is resolved in the CONTROLLING CASE in a
manner which affects the same issue in other years (e.g., * losses in
later years or affects depreciation schedules), the resolution will
apply to petitioner(s)' later years as if the petitioner(s) in this
case was/were the same as the taxpayer(s) in the CONTROLLING CASE;
- 10 -
5. A decision shall be submitted in this case when the decision
in the CONTROLLING CASE (whether litigated or settled) becomes final
under I.R.C. sec. 7481;
6. If the CONTROLLING CASE is appealed, the petitioner(s)
consent(s) to the assessment and collection of the deficiency(ies),
attributable to the adjustment(s) formulated by reference to the Tax
Court's opinion, notwithstanding the restrictions under I.R.C. sec.
6213(a);
7. The petitioner(s) in this case will testify or provide
information in any case involving the same tax shelter adjustment, if
requested; and
8. The petitioner(s) in this case consent(s) to the disclosure
of all tax returns and tax return information for the purpose of
respondent's discovering or submitting evidence in any case involving
the same shelter adjustment(s).
On or about February of 1988, a settlement offer (the
Plastics Recycling project settlement offer or the offer) was
made available by respondent to all docketed Plastics Recycling
cases, and subsequently to all nondocketed cases. Baratelli v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1994-484.7 Pursuant to the offer,
taxpayers had 30 days to accept the following terms:
(1) Allowance of a deduction for 50 percent of the amount of the
cash investment in the venture in the year(s) of investment to
the extent of loss claimed; (2) Government concession of the
substantial understatement of tax penalties under section 6661
and the negligence additions to tax under section 6653(a)(1) and
(2); (3) taxpayer concession of the section 6659 addition to tax
for valuation overstatement and the increased rate of interest
7
The record does not include a settlement offer to
petitioners. Petitioners have attached to their motion for
decision a copy of a settlement offer to another taxpayer with
respect to a plastics recycling case. Respondent has not
disputed the accuracy of the statement of the plastics recycling
settlement offer.
- 11 -
under section 6621; and (4) execution of a closing agreement
(Form 906) stating the settlement and resolving the entire matter
for all years. Petitioners assert that the Plastics Recycling
project settlement offer was extended to them, but they do not
claim to have accepted the offer timely, so they effectively
rejected it.
In December 1988, the Miller cases were disposed of by
settlement agreement between the taxpayers and respondent, and
attorney Richard S. Kestenbaum executed the settlement on behalf
of the Millers. This Court entered decision documents based upon
those settlements on December 22, 1988. The settlement provided
that the taxpayers in the Miller cases were liable for the
addition to tax under the provisions of section 6659 for
valuation overstatement, but not for the additions to tax under
the provisions of sections 6661 and 6653(a). The increased
interest under section 6621(c), premised solely upon Miller's
interest in the recyclers for the taxable years at issue, was not
applicable because Miller made payments prior to December 31,
1984, so no interest accrued after that time. Respondent did not
notify petitioners or any other taxpayers of the disposition of
the Miller cases. Estate of Satin v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo.
1994-435; Fisher v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1994-434.8
8
Respondent attached copies of the Miller closing agreement
and disclosure waiver to her objection to petitioners' motion for
leave. Petitioners do not dispute the accuracy of the document
(continued...)
- 12 -
In a notice of deficiency dated August 25, 1989, respondent
determined a deficiency in petitioners' Federal income tax for
1982, plus increased interest under section 6621(c). Petitioners
timely filed a petition with this Court. Their attorneys at the
time were Richard S. Kestenbaum and Bernard S. Mark (Kestenbaum
and Mark). On March 25, 1992, this Court filed its opinion in
Provizer v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1992-177, in which
Kestenbaum and Mark represented taxpayers. In our Provizer
opinion, all of the Plastics Recycling issues were decided for
respondent, including the additions to tax under section 6653(a)
and increased interest under section 6621(c). On February 1,
1994, respondent filed a motion for leave to file a first
amendment to answer in order to assert reduced deficiencies and
the applicability of sections 6659 and 6653(a)(1) and (2) for
1982. The motion was subsequently granted.
On January 24, 1994, Hugh Janow, petitioners' present
counsel, filed an entry of appearance for petitioners in this
case. Kestenbaum and Mark promptly filed a motion to withdraw as
counsel, and it was granted. On March 31, 1994, petitioners and
respondent filed a Stipulation of Settled Issues concerning
petitioners' participation in the Plastics Recycling project.
Petitioners conceded the losses and tax credits claimed on their
1982 return resulting from their participation in the Plastics
8
(...continued)
although it is not otherwise a part of the record in this case.
- 13 -
Recycling project as well as the increased rate of interest under
section 6621(c). Issues concerning the additions to tax under
sections 6659 and 6653(a)(1) and (2) were not resolved.
On August 25, 1994, this Court filed opinions in two
Plastics Recycling cases: Estate of Satin v. Commissioner, supra
and Fisher v. Commissioner, supra. At issue in the Estate of
Satin and Fisher cases were two piggyback agreements virtually
identical to the one executed by petitioners and respondent for
docket No. 1173-88. Noting that the cases involved "peculiar, if
not unique circumstances", this Court held that the piggyback
agreements entitled the taxpayers to the same settlement as had
been reached in the Miller cases. Docket No. 1173-88 has
subsequently been settled pursuant to the piggyback agreement.
Respondent represents that administrative settlements have been
made with taxpayers in each of the relatively few cases, like
docket No. 1173-88, in which the taxpayer executed a piggyback
agreement like those discussed in Estate of Satin v.
Commissioner, supra, and Fisher v. Commissioner, supra.
3. Discussion
The motion for entry of decision here under consideration
raises the principle of equal treatment of similarly situated
taxpayers, the interpretation of a Stipulation of Settlement
entered into by petitioners and respondent in a separate case
(docket No. 1173-88), and equitable estoppel. In effect,
petitioners seek to resurrect the settlement offer they rejected.
- 14 -
Petitioners first argue that they are similarly situated to
Elliot Miller (Miller), the taxpayer in the Miller cases, and
that therefore they are entitled to the same settlement agreement
executed by respondent and Miller in those cases.
Under the principle of "equality," the Commissioner has a
duty of consistency toward similarly situated taxpayers and
cannot tax one and not tax another without some rational basis
for the difference. United States v. Kaiser, 363 U.S. 299, 308
(1960) (concurring opinion); see Baker v. United States, 748 F.2d
1465 (11th Cir. 1984); Farmers' and Merchants' Bank v. United
States, 476 F.2d 406 (4th Cir. 1973). Essentially, the principle
of equality precludes the Commissioner from making arbitrary
distinctions between like cases. See Baker v. Commissioner, 787
F.2d 637, 643 (D.C. Cir. 1986), vacating 83 T.C. 822 (1984).
The different tax treatment accorded petitioners and Miller
was not arbitrary or irrational. While petitioners and Miller
both invested in the Plastics Recycling project,9 their actions
with respect to such investments provide a rational basis for
treating them differently. Miller foreclosed any potential
liability for increased interest in his cases by making payments
prior to December 31, 1984; no interest accrued after that date.
9
The Millers were Schedule C owners of Sentinel EPE
recyclers, while petitioners owned interests in limited
partnerships that owned Sentinel EPE recyclers. We consider this
difference to be negligible and of no consequence. See Estate of
Satin v. Commissioner, supra; Fisher v. Commissioner, supra.
- 15 -
In contrast, petitioners concede that the increased rate of
interest under section 6621(c) applies in this case. Liability
for the increased rate of interest is one of the principal
differences between the settlement in the Miller cases and the
settlement offer rejected by petitioners. Accordingly, with
respect to the section 6621(c) issue, petitioners and Miller were
treated equally to the extent they were similarly situated, and
differently to the extent they were not. With respect to the
other differences, i.e., the section 6653(a) addition to tax and
the 50-percent loss deductions, petitioners rejected a settlement
offer made to them prior to trial of a test case. Miller
negotiated for himself and accepted an offer that was essentially
the same prior to trial. In their motion, petitioners seek the
benefits of the settlement after trial of the test case. Miller
obtained no such benefit. Petitioners' motion is not supported
by the principle of equality. Cf. Baratelli v. Commissioner,
T.C. Memo. 1994-484.
Next, petitioners argue that the piggyback agreement they
executed for docket No. 1173-88 entitles them to the Miller
settlement in docket No. 28082-89. Petitioners maintain that the
scope of the piggyback agreement includes cases that concern
1982, such as docket No. 28082-89.
A settlement stipulation is a contract. Smith v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1991-412. General principles of
contract law are applied in construing a settlement agreement.
- 16 -
Goldman v. Commissioner, 39 F.3d 402 (2d Cir. 1994), affg. T.C.
Memo. 1993-480. Absent wrongful, misleading conduct or mutual
mistake, we enforce a stipulation of settlement in accordance
with our interpretation of its written terms. Stamm Intl. Corp.
v. Commissioner, 90 T.C. 315 (1988); Scherr v. Commissioner, T.C.
Memo. 1990-225. Where the language of an agreement is
unambiguous, we look within the "four corners" of the instrument
to ascertain the intent of the parties. Goldman v. Commissioner,
supra; see Estate of Satin v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1994-435,
and Fisher v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1994-434, and cases cited
therein.
Petitioners first assert that the piggyback agreement
designates both of the Miller cases as test cases, instead of
just one, so as to extend the scope of the agreement to the years
at issue in those cases, such as 1982. In the Estate of Satin
and Fisher cases, we found that the piggyback agreement entitled
participant taxpayers to elect to accept the results of the
Miller cases or the Provizer case. There is no language in the
agreement extending the result of the controlling cases to any or
all cases of the participant taxpayers, not referenced in the
agreement, simply because they concern the same years addressed
in the controlling cases. Petitioners' theory as to why both
Miller cases were designated controlling cases is speculation
unsupported by the terms of the piggyback agreement.
- 17 -
Petitioners also argue that paragraph 4 of the piggyback
agreement extends the controlling case to all cases not expressly
a part of or referenced in the agreement, such as docket No.
28082-89. Paragraph 4 provides:
If the adjustment is resolved in the CONTROLLING CASE
in a manner which affects the same issue in other years
(e.g., * losses in later years or affects depreciation
schedules), the resolution will apply to petitioner(s)'
later years as if the petitioner(s) in this case
was/were the same as the taxpayer(s) in the CONTROLLING
CASE; [Emphasis added.]
We disagree with petitioners' interpretation of paragraph 4.
Paragraph 4 merely provides that if the result in the controlling
case affects a continuing item in other or later years in the
controlling case, then the resolution will apply in the same
manner to other or later years of the same continuing item in
petitioners' case; it does not extend the result to other cases
not a part of the agreement. See Conway v. Commissioner, T.C.
Memo. 1994-413 (interpreting a similar stipulation); sec.
301.7121-1(b)(3) and (4), Proced. & Admin. Regs. The piggyback
agreement is exclusively for docket No. 1173-88; no other case is
explicitly or implicitly referenced or incorporated therein.
Petitioners' motion is not supported by the piggyback agreement
for docket No. 1173-88.
Finally, petitioners contend that the doctrine of equitable
estoppel should apply to bar respondent from assessing penalties
other than those assessed in the Miller cases. We note that this
Court is a court of limited jurisdiction and lacks general
- 18 -
equitable powers. Commissioner v. McCoy, 484 U.S. 3, 7 (1987).
However, while we cannot expand our jurisdiction through
equitable principles, we can apply them in the disposition of
cases that are within our jurisdiction. See Woods v.
Commissioner, 92 T.C. 776, 784-787 (1989), and cases cited
therein. The redetermination of a deficiency, addition to tax,
or penalty determined by respondent is within our jurisdiction.
Secs. 6213(a), 6665, 6671. Accordingly, in deciding this issue,
we are not expanding on our statutory jurisdiction.
"[T]he doctrine of equitable estoppel is applied against the
Government `with the utmost caution and restraint.'" Kronish v.
Commissioner, 90 T.C. 684, 695 (1988) (quoting Boulez v.
Commissioner, 76 T.C. 209, 214-215 (1981), affd. 810 F.2d 209
(D.C. Cir. 1987)). There are several conditions that must be
satisfied before the doctrine is applied: (1) A false
representation or wrongful, misleading silence by the party
against whom the opposing party seeks to invoke the doctrine; (2)
error in a statement of fact and not in an opinion or statement
of law; (3) ignorance of the facts; (4) reasonable reliance on
the acts or statements of the one against whom estoppel is
claimed; and (5) adverse effects of the acts or statements of the
one against whom estoppel is claimed. See Kronish v.
Commissioner, supra at 695, and cases cited therein.
Petitioners assert that they were adversely affected in this
case by respondent's failure promptly to notify them of the
- 19 -
disposition of the Miller cases. Specifically, petitioners
maintain that respondent's failure to notify them of the Miller
settlement prior to issuing the notice of deficiency for this
case "effectively took from them the opportunity to have the
Miller settlement applied to * * * 1982."
However, there is no showing in the record that petitioners
ever had the opportunity to have the Miller settlement applied to
1982. Petitioners were not similarly situated to the Millers and
have conceded that section 6621(c) applies to this case. No
piggyback agreement was offered or executed in this case.
Instead, as petitioners themselves have argued, respondent
extended the Plastics Recycling project settlement offer to
petitioners. That offer mirrored the Miller settlement or was
more advantageous for taxpayers in all major respects except the
increased interest. Petitioners have not shown that knowledge of
the Miller settlement would have entitled them to escape
liability for the increased interest. We find that petitioners
were not adversely affected by respondent's actions, and
therefore that their motion is not supported on equitable
grounds.
In order to reflect the foregoing,
An appropriate order will be
issued denying petitioners' motion.