Greenberg Brothers Partnership 4, a.k.a. Breathless Associates, Richard M. Greenberg, Tax Matters Partner v. Commissioner

111 T.C. No. 7UNITED STATES TAX COURT
GREENBERG BROTHERS PARTNERSHIP #4, a.k.a.
BREATHLESS ASSOCIATES, RICHARD M. GREENBERG,
TAX MATTERS PARTNER, ET AL.,1 Petitioner v.
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
Docket Nos. 19575-91, 22780-91, Filed August 24, 1998.
29878-91, 621-92,
623-92, 3968-92,
4432-92, 13014-92,
15641-92, 12062-94.
1
Cases of the following petitioners are consolidated
herewith: Greenberg Brothers Partnership #12, a.k.a Lone Wolf
McQuade Associates, Richard M. Greenberg, Tax Matters Partner,
docket No. 22780-91; Easy Money Associates, Richard M. Greenberg,
Tax Matters Partner, docket No. 29878-91; Cinema '84, Richard M.
Greenberg, Tax Matters Partner, docket No. 621-92; First Blood
Associates, Richard M. Greenberg, Tax Matters Partner, docket No.
623-92; Under Fire Associates, Richard M. Greenberg, Tax Matters
Partner, docket No. 3968-92; Cinema '85, Richard M. Greenberg,
Tax Matters Partner, docket No. 4432-92; First Blood Associates,
Richard M. Greenberg, Tax Matters Partner, docket No. 13014-92;
First Blood Associates, Richard M. Greenberg, Tax Matters
Partner, docket No. 15641-92; First Blood Associates, Eugene C.
Lipsky, A Partner Other Than the Tax Matters Partner, docket No.
12062-94.
- 2 -
Pursuant to sec. 6224(c)(2), I.R.C., Ps request
consistent settlement terms of partnership items with
earlier settlement agreements that include concessions
pertaining to partnership and nonpartnership items. Held:
A settlement agreement that includes concessions of
partnership and nonpartnership items is not subject to the
consistent settlement provisions under sec. 301.6224(c)-3T,
Temporary Proced. & Admin. Regs., 52 Fed. Reg. 6787 (Mar. 5,
1987). Held, further: Sec. 301.6224(c)-3T, Temporary
Proced. & Admin. Regs., supra, is valid.
Thomas E. Redding and Sallie W. Gladney, for participants.
Joseph F. Long and Gerald A. Thorpe, for respondent.
OPINION
DAWSON, Judge: These cases were assigned to Special Trial
Judge Carleton D. Powell pursuant to the provisions of section
7443A(b)(4) and Rules 180, 181, and 183.2 The Court agrees with
and adopts the opinion of the Special Trial Judge, which is set
forth below.
OPINION OF THE SPECIAL TRIAL JUDGE
POWELL, Special Trial Judge: These consolidated cases are
before the Court on participating partners' (participants)
motions pursuant to section 6224(c)(2) for entry of orders
compelling respondent to extend offers of consistent settlement,
2
Unless otherwise indicated, all section references are
to the Internal Revenue Code in effect for the years in issue,
and all Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice
and Procedure.
- 3 -
or, alternatively, for entry of decisions reflecting terms of
prior settlements.3
The issues are as follows: (1) Whether, under the
circumstances, participants are entitled to consistent settlement
terms pursuant to section 6224(c)(2); and (2) whether section
301.6224(c)-3T(b), Temporary Proced. & Admin. Regs., 52 Fed. Reg.
6787 (Mar. 5, 1987), is valid.
The relevant facts are not in dispute and may be summarized
as follows. The partnerships involved in these cases were formed
to purchase and exploit the rights to certain films.4 The
general partners of these partnerships were Richard M. Greenberg
and/or A. Frederick Greenberg. Respondent began an examination
3
A list of the participants is attached to this opinion
in an Appendix.
4
On the partnerships' respective returns for the years
in issue, the partnerships claimed loss deductions based upon the
alleged purchase of various first-run motion pictures. The films
represent a roster of the famous and forgotten from 1980's
cinema. The partnerships and their underlying films include,
inter alia, the following: Greenberg Brothers Partnership #4,
a.k.a. Breathless Associates (the 1983 remake of "Breathless"
starring Richard Gere); Greenberg Partnership #12, a.k.a. Lone
Wolf McQuade Associates ("Lone Wolf McQuade" starring Chuck
Norris); Easy Money Associates (Rodney Dangerfield and Joe Pesci
starring in "Easy Money"); Cinema '84 (James Cameron directing
Arnold Schwarzenegger in "The Terminator", horror genre entries
"The Howling II" and "Return of the Living Dead"); First Blood
Associates ("First Blood" the initial entry in Sylvester
Stallone's "Rambo" series); Under Fire Associates (Nick Nolte and
Gene Hackman starring in "Under Fire"); and Cinema '85
("Salvador" directed by Oliver Stone and starring James Woods and
James Belushi and "At Close Range" starring Sean Penn and
Christopher Walken).
- 4 -
of the partnerships at some point in the mid-1980's as part of a
national project focusing on the various partnerships of the
Greenberg Brothers.
The schedule below sets forth the specific dates on which
respondent issued notices of final partnership administrative
adjustments (FPAA's) determining adjustments to partnership items
for each of the partnerships:
Partnership Petition
Partnership Docket No. Taxable Years FPAA Date Date
Greenberg #4/Breathless 19575-91 1983-87 June 3, 1991 Aug. 30, 1991
Greenberg #12/Lone Wolf 22780-91 1983-86 July 8, 1991 Oct. 7, 1991
Easy Money Associates 29878-91 1983-86 Oct. 7, 1991 Dec. 20, 1991
Cinema '84 621-92 1984-89 Oct. 15, 1991 Jan. 8, 1992
First Blood Associates 623-92 1983-87 Oct. 21, 1991 Jan. 8, 1992
Under Fire Associates 3968-92 1983-86 Dec. 9, 1991 Feb. 24, 1992
Cinema '85 4432-92 1985-89 Dec. 2, 1991 Feb. 28, 1992
First Blood Associates 13014-92 1988 Mar. 24, 1992 June 12, 1992
First Blood Associates 15641-92 1989 Apr. 20, 1992 July 10, 1992
First Blood Associates 12062-94 1990 Mar. 14, 1994 July 11, 1994
It is undisputed that the petitions were timely filed and
the requests for consistent settlement terms were timely made in
these cases. With the exception of docket No. 12062-94, at the
time the petitions were filed in these cases, each partnership's
principal place of business was located at Greenwich,
Connecticut. At the time the petition was filed in docket No.
12062-94, that partnership was in dissolution; the partnership's
principal place of business during its winddown period was
located in New York, New York.
Each of the settlement agreements with which participants
seek consistent settlement was entered into and effective on
- 5 -
February 8, 1995 (the original settlement agreement). Each
original settlement agreement is contained on a Closing Agreement
On Final Determination Covering Specific Matters (Form 906), and
the essential provisions (excluding the names of each
partnership, the names of the settling partners, the partnership
taxable years involved, and the actual dollar amounts contributed
to each partnership) are identical.
Among the key provisions of the various original settlement
agreements are the following:
1. No adjustment to the partnership items shall be
made for the taxable years [in issue] for purposes of this
settlement.
2. The taxpayers are entitled to claim their
distributive share of the partnership losses for [the years
in issue] only to the extent they are at risk under I.R.C.
[sec.] 465.
3. The taxpayers amount at risk for [the years in
issue] is their capital contribution to the partnership.
* * * * * * *
6. The taxpayers are not at risk under I.R.C. [sec.]
465 for any partnership notes, entered into by the
partnership to acquire rights in the motion picture * * *
whether or not assumed by the taxpayers. Any losses
disallowed under this agreement are suspended under I.R.C.
[sec.] 465. Such suspended losses may be used to offset the
taxpayers pro rata share of any income earned by the
partnership and/or other income in accordance with the
operation of I.R.C. [sec.] 465.
Pursuant to section 6224(c)(2), participants timely
requested consistent settlement terms respecting partnership
items of the partnerships. Participants seek to avail themselves
- 6 -
of paragraph one of the original settlement agreement without
being bound by the burdens of the at risk provisions set forth in
the remaining paragraphs. Respondent has refused to extend
offers of settlement terms to participants under these
circumstances.5
Discussion
TEFRA--Partnership and Nonpartnership Items
The parties agree that the partnerships are subject to the
audit and litigation procedures of the Tax Equity & Fiscal
Responsibility Act of 1982 (TEFRA), Pub. L. 97-248, 96 Stat. 324.
The principal purpose behind TEFRA is to provide consistency and
reduce duplication in the treatment of "partnership items" by
requiring that they be determined in a unified proceeding at the
partnership level. Maxwell v. Commissioner, 87 T.C. 783, 787
(1986); H. Conf. Rept. 97-760, at 600 (1982), 1982-2 C.B. 662;
see also Slovacek v. United States, 40 Fed. Cl. 828 (1998).
Partnership items include each partner's proportionate share
of the partnership's aggregate items of income, gain, loss,
deduction, or credit. Sec. 6231(a)(3); sec. 301.6231(a)(3)-
1(a)(1)(i), Proced. & Admin. Regs. Partnership items also
include each partner's proportionate share of the partnership's
liabilities, including determinations with respect to the amount
5
As we understand, at least until these cases were
submitted, respondent was still offering the settlement to
partners who were willing to accept all of the settlement terms.
- 7 -
of the liabilities, and whether the liabilities are nonrecourse.
Sec. 301.6231(a)(3)-1(a)(1)(v), Proced. & Admin. Regs.
A nonpartnership item is "an item which is (or is treated
as) not a partnership item." Sec. 6231(a)(4). An "affected
item" is "any item to the extent such item is affected by a
partnership item." Sec. 6231(a)(5); see also N.C.F. Energy
Partners v. Commissioner, 89 T.C. 741, 743-745 (1987); sec.
301.6231(a)(5)-1T(a), Temporary Proced. & Admin. Regs., 52 Fed.
Reg. 6790 (Mar. 5, 1987).6 The determination of a partner's
amount at risk with respect to partnership liabilities personally
assumed is an affected item. Hambrose Leasing v. Commissioner,
99 T.C. 298, 312 (1992); sec. 301.6231(a)(5)-1T(c), Temporary
Proced. & Admin. Regs., 52 Fed. Reg. 6790 (Mar. 5, 1987). While
there are partnership item components to the at risk calculation
that affect that determination at the partner level, the
determination of amounts at risk by individual partners is not a
partnership item.7 Hambrose Leasing v. Commissioner, supra at
309-312; sec. 301.6231(a)(3)-1(a)(1)(vi)(C), Proced. & Admin.
6
There are two types of affected items: (1) Those
requiring factual determinations to be made at the partner level,
and (2) a computational adjustment made to record the change in a
partner's tax liability resulting from the proper treatment of
partnership items. N.C.F. Energy Partners v. Commissioner, 89
T.C. 741, 744 (1987).
7
For example, paragraph six of the original settlement
agreement refers to the suspension of losses under sec. 465 and
carried forward to future years.
- 8 -
Regs. It follows, therefore, that the determinations of the
amounts at risk with respect to partnership liabilities are also
"nonpartnership items" within the meaning of section 6231(a)(4).
Accordingly, for purposes here we refer to paragraph one of the
original settlement agreement as the settlement of the
partnership items provision and the remaining paragraphs
referring to "at risk" as nonpartnership items settlement
provisions.
TEFRA--Consistent settlement
The present dispute involves section 6224(c)(2) and section
301.6224(c)-3T, Temporary Proced. & Admin. Regs., 52 Fed. Reg.
6787 (Mar. 5, 1987).8
Section 6224(c)(2) provides, in part:
Other partners have right to enter into consistent
agreements.--If the Secretary enters into a settlement
agreement with any partner with respect to partnership items
for any partnership taxable year, the Secretary shall offer
to any other partner who so requests settlement terms for
the partnership taxable year which are consistent with those
contained in such settlement agreement. * * *
In construing section 6224(c)(2) our task is to give effect
to the intent of Congress. We begin with the statutory language,
which is the most persuasive evidence of the statutory purpose.
8
No court has yet ruled upon the effect of sec.
6224(c)(2) and sec. 301.6224(c)-3T. Temporary Proced. & Admin.
Regs., 52 Fed. Reg. 6787 (Mar. 5, 1987). See, e.g., Pilie v.
United States, 56 F.3d 686 (5th Cir. 1995); Slovacek v. United
States, 40 Fed. Cl. 828 (1998); Vulcan Oil Tech. Partners v.
Commissioner, 110 T.C. 153 (1998); H Graphics/Access, Ltd.
Partnership v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1992-345.
- 9 -
United States v. American Trucking Associations, Inc., 310 U.S.
534, 542-543 (1940); Hospital Corp. of Am. v. Commissioner, 107
T.C. 116, 128 (1996). The plain meaning of statutory language
ordinarily is conclusive. United States v. Ron Pair Enters.,
Inc., 489 U.S. 235, 241-242 (1989). If a statute is silent or
ambiguous, we turn to legislative history to ascertain
congressional intent. Burlington N. R.R. v. Oklahoma Tax Commn.,
481 U.S. 454, 461 (1987); Peterson Marital Trust v. Commissioner,
102 T.C. 790, 799 (1994), affd. 78 F.3d 795 (2d Cir. 1996).9
Section 6224(c)(2) requires that the settlement agreement
forming the basis for the request for consistent settlement terms
must be "a settlement agreement * * * with respect to partnership
items". The statute otherwise imposes no conditions upon those
settlement agreements that may be subject to requests for
consistent settlement terms. On the other hand, the parameters
of what constitutes a settlement agreement for purposes of
section 6224(c)(2) are not statutorily defined. Reference to the
Spartan legislative history on settlement agreements in TEFRA
proceedings is unilluminating, as the conference report evinces
9
Even where the statutory language appears to be clear
we are not precluded from consulting legislative history. United
States v. American Trucking Associations, Inc., 310 U.S. 534,
543-544 (1940); Hospital Corp. of Am. v. Commissioner, 107 T.C.
116, 129 (1996).
- 10 -
no particular congressional intent as to the nature of consistent
settlements.10
Under section 6230(k), however, the Secretary "shall
prescribe such regulations as may be necessary to carry out the
purposes" of subchapter C (the TEFRA provisions). Regulations
under section 6224(c)(2) were proposed on April 18, 1986. See 51
Fed. Reg. 13231 (Apr. 18, 1986). Pursuant to the authority of
sections 6230(k) and 7805,11 T.D. 8128, 1987-1 C.B. 325, 325-326,
temporary regulations identical to the proposed regulations were
promulgated shortly thereafter. Section 301.6224(c)-3T,
Temporary Proced. & Admin. Regs., 52 Fed. Reg. 6787 (Mar. 5,
1987), provides, in pertinent part:
[Sec.] 301.6224(c)-3T. Consistent settlements
(Temporary).--(a) In general. If the Service enters into a
settlement agreement with any partner with respect to
partnership items, the Service shall offer to any other
partner who so requests * * * settlement terms which are
consistent with those contained in the settlement agreement
entered into.
(b) Requirements for consistent settlements.
"Consistent" settlement terms are those based on the same
determinations with respect to partnership items.
Settlements with respect to partnership items shall be self-
contained; thus, a concession by one party with respect to a
10
The conference report simply notes in passing: "The
Secretary must offer to any partner who so requests settlement
terms that are consistent with the settlement with any other
partner." H. Conf. Rept. 97-760, at 602 (1982), 1982-2 C.B. 600,
664.
11
Sec. 7805(a) generally provides that the Secretary
"shall prescribe all needful rules and regulations for the
enforcement of this title".
- 11 -
partnership item may not be based upon a concession by the
other party with respect to a nonpartnership item.
Settlements shall be comprehensive, that is, a settlement
may not be limited to selected items. The requirement for
consistent settlement terms applies only if--
(1) The items were partnership items for the partner
entering into the original settlement immediately before the
original settlement, and
(2) The items are partnership items for the partner
requesting the consistent settlement at the time the partner
files the request. [Emphasis supplied.]
Participants interpret "settlements" in the regulation as
referring only to the consistent settlement terms of partnership
items. They maintain that paragraph one of the original
settlement agreement constitutes a "settlement agreement * * *
with respect to partnership items" for purposes of the consistent
settlement provisions and request settlement in accord with
paragraph one. This interpretation of section 301.6224(c)-3T(b),
Temporary Proced. & Admin. Regs., 52 Fed. Reg. 6787 (Mar. 5,
1987), is nothing more than semantical sophistry and would have
us read out of the regulation the requirement that a settlement
agreement for consistent settlement purposes cannot be based on
concessions of nonpartnership items and that a settlement may not
be limited to selected items. Where, as here, a settlement
agreement contains interrelated provisions which reflect
concessions of partnership and nonpartnership items, the
temporary regulation provides that such original settlement
- 12 -
agreements are not subject to the consistent settlement provision
of section 6224(c)(2).
Participants argue in the alternative that the regulation is
invalid insofar as it adds restrictions that are inconsistent
with section 6224(c)(2). In Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural
Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837, 843 (1984), the
Supreme Court set forth the following analysis:
If * * * the court determines Congress has not directly
addressed the precise question at issue, the court does not
simply impose its own construction on the statute, as would
be necessary in the absence of an administrative
interpretation. Rather, if the statute is silent or
ambiguous with respect to the specific issue, the question
for the court is whether the agency's answer is based on a
permissible construction of the statute. [Fn. refs.
omitted.]
We have already concluded that the statute is silent as to the
scope of consistent settlements. Under the Chevron analysis, the
question remains whether the requirements in section 301.6224(c)-
3T, Temporary Proced. & Admin. Regs., supra, are a permissible
construction of the statute. Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural
Resources Defense Council, Inc., supra.12
12
As a general proposition, temporary regulations are
accorded the same weight as final regulations. Peterson Marital
Trust v. Commissioner, 78 F.3d 795, 798 (2d Cir. 1996), affg. 102
T.C. 790 (1994); Nissho Iwai Am. Corp. v. Commissioner, 89 T.C.
765, 776 (1987). In judging the validity of a temporary
regulation, we employ the same analysis as that applied to a
final regulation. Schaefer v. Commissioner, 105 T.C. 227, 229
(1995).
- 13 -
A legislative regulation, which is issued pursuant to a
specific congressional delegation to the Secretary, is entitled
to greater deference than an interpretive regulation, which is
promulgated under the general rulemaking power vested in the
Secretary by section 7805(a). Peterson Marital Trust v.
Commissioner, 102 T.C. 790, 797 (1994), affd. 78 F.3d 795 (2d
Cir. 1996). Participants concede that section 301.6224(c)-3T,
Temporary Proced. & Admin. Regs., supra, is legislative in
character, and we accord the regulation the highest level of
judicial deference; viz, we are not to invalidate the regulation
unless it is arbitrary, capricious, or manifestly contrary to the
statute.13 Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense
Council, Inc., supra at 843-844; see also Ahmetovic v.
Immigration and Naturalization Service, 62 F.3d 48, 51 (2d Cir.
1995). To be valid, section 301.6224(c)-3T(b), Temporary Proced.
& Admin. Regs., supra, need not be the only, or even the best,
construction of section 6224(c)(2). See Atlantic Mutual Ins. Co.
v. Commissioner, 523 U.S. ___, 118 S.Ct. 1413, 1418 (Apr. 21,
1998). The Supreme Court has stated that a reviewing court
13
Participants' opening brief regarding the consistent
settlement issues states as follows: "Treas. Reg. [sec.]
301.6224(c)-3T(b) is a legislative regulation promulgated
pursuant to Respondent's [sic] grant of authority in [sec.]
6230(k)." Even under the less deferential standard of review
applicable to interpretive regulations, we would conclude that
the regulation is valid. Cf. McKnight v. Commissioner, 7 F.3d
447 (5th Cir. 1993), affg. 99 T.C. 180 (1992).
- 14 -
need not conclude that the agency construction was the only
one it permissibly could have adopted to uphold the
construction, or even the reading the court would have
reached if the question initially had arisen in a judicial
proceeding. [Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources
Defense Council, Inc., supra at 843 n.11; citations
omitted.]
In promulgating regulations, the Secretary has the
discretion to formulate rules not found in the statute:
"supplementation of a statute is a necessary and proper part of
the Secretary's role in the administration of our tax laws."
Hachette USA, Inc. v. Commissioner, 105 T.C. 234, 251 (1995),
affd. per curiam 87 F.3d 43 (2d Cir. 1996). "'The power of an
administrative agency to administer a congressionally created
* * * program necessarily requires the formulation of policy and
the making of rules to fill any gap left, implicitly or
explicitly, by Congress.'" Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural
Resources Defense Council, Inc., supra at 843 (quoting Morton v.
Ruiz, 415 U.S. 199, 231 (1974)).
Section 301.6224(c)-3T, Temporary Proced. & Admin. Regs.,
supra, is consistent with the TEFRA goal of promoting the uniform
adjustment of partnership items. H. Conf. Rept. 97-760, at 600,
602 (1982), 1982-2 C.B. 662, 664; see Maxwell v. Commissioner, 87
T.C. at 787. It furthers this goal by ensuring the integrity of
those original settlement agreements with which requests for
consistent settlement terms may be made. The regulation
accomplishes this through two requirements. First, the
- 15 -
settlement of partnership items must be self-contained; i.e., not
premised upon the settlement of nonpartnership items, and second,
an original settlement must determine all partnership items.14
Sec. 301.6224(c)-3T(b), Temporary Proced. & Admin. Regs., 52 Fed.
Reg. 6787 (Mar. 5, 1987).
The instant cases afford a prime example of the mischief
that the temporary regulation aims to curtail. If, as
participants argue, paragraph one of the original settlement
agreements may be the subject of a consistent settlement
agreement, then they are entitled to receive consistent treatment
only with respect to this provision through their request under
section 6224(c)(2). In essence, participants seek to extract the
benefits from paragraph one and disregard the burdens from the
other provisions of the original settlement agreements. Although
cloaked beneath the mantle of consistent settlement, what
participants actually seek are settlements that are inconsistent
with those received by other partners.
14
A mechanism exists by which a settlement agreement may
be effected so as to comply with the requirements of the
temporary regulation. The Court takes notice of the fact that
respondent has utilized Form 870-L(AD) (Settlement Agreement for
Partnership Adjustments and Affected Items) to settle adjustments
with individual partners. The form contains two separate and
distinct parts: Part one is used to settle partnership items,
while part two is used to settle nonpartnership and affected
items. See, e.g., Olson v. United States, 37 Fed. Cl. 727, 729
(1997).
- 16 -
Participants attempt to place these cases within the realm
of those decisions in which courts have invalidated Treasury
regulations. Although it is well settled that respondent "may
not usurp the authority of Congress by adding restrictions to a
statute which are not there", Estate of Boeshore v. Commissioner,
78 T.C. 523, 527 (1982), participants' reliance on this line of
authority is misplaced. In each of the cases cited by the
participants, a regulation was invalidated either because it
directly conflicted with an unambiguous statutory provision or
because it was inimical to the clear congressional mandate set
forth in the pertinent legislative history.15 As previously
15
See, e.g., United States v. Vogel Fertilizer Co., 455
U.S. 16, 26 (1982) ("The legislative history of sec. 1563(a)(2)
resolves any ambiguity in the statutory language and makes it
plain that Treas. Reg. sec. 1.1563-1(a)(3) is not a reasonable
statutory interpretation."); Koshland v. Helvering, 298 U.S. 441,
447 (1936) ("where, as in this case, the provisions of the act
are unambiguous, and its directions specific, there is no power
to amend it by regulation"); Jackson Family Foundation v.
Commissioner, 97 T.C. 534, 542 (1991), affd. 15 F.3d 917 (9th
Cir. 1994) ("there is simply no statutory basis for the
regulation"); (holding that sec. 1.863-1(b), Income Tax Regs.,
contradicts the clear and unambiguous language of sec.
863(b)(2)); Phillips Petroleum Co. v. Commissioner, 97 T.C. 30,
34-36 (1991), affd. without published opinion 70 F.3d 1282 (10th
Cir. 1995); Durbin Paper Stock Co. v. Commissioner, 80 T.C. 252,
260 (1983) ("we find section 992(a)(1)(C) to be unambiguous. In
our view, there is no statutory authority for the 'paid-in'
capital requirement set forth in section 1.992-1(d)(1), Income
Tax Regs."); Estate of Boeshore v. Commissioner, 78 T.C. 523,
531-532 (1982) ("the regulation adds restrictions to the statute
that are not there, and the regulation is out of 'harmony' with
the statute's origin and purpose"); ("respondent's interpretation
of section 103(c)(2)(A) is at odds with the legislative history
and the totality of the circumstances surrounding the enactment
(continued...)
- 17 -
discussed, here there is neither an unambiguous specific
statutory directive, nor any specific evidence in the legislative
history as to the congressional intent behind the consistent
settlement provisions.
In sum, section 301.6224(c)-3T(b), Temporary Proced. &
Admin. Regs., supra, harmonizes with section 6224(c)(2) and the
broader legislative purpose behind TEFRA, and we conclude that
the regulation constitutes a permissible interpretation of the
statute. Accordingly, we uphold the validity of the regulation
as neither arbitrary, capricious, nor manifestly contrary to the
statute. See Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense
Council, 467 U.S. at 844.16
15
(...continued)
of section 103(c)"); State of Washington v. Commissioner, 77 T.C.
656, 672 (1981), affd. 692 F.2d 128 (D.C. Cir. 1982); Arrow
Fastener Co. v. Commissioner, 76 T.C. 423, 431 (1981) ("we find
the statute clear and unambiguous, and respondent has no power to
promulgate a regulation adding provisions that he believes
Congress should have included.").
16
Participants argue that respondent provided them with
the necessary information regarding each of the original
settlement agreements, fully aware that participants sought the
information for the purpose of making requests for offers of
consistent settlement terms. Therefore, participants suggest
that respondent should be estopped from now claiming that the
original settlement agreements are not subject to requests for
consistent settlement terms.
Equitable estoppel is a judicial doctrine that precludes a
party from denying that party's own acts or representations which
induced another to act to his or her detriment. Hofstetter v.
Commissioner, 98 T.C. 695, 700 (1992). Equitable estoppel is to
be applied against respondent only "'with utmost caution and
restraint.'" Id. at 700 (quoting Estate of Emerson v.
(continued...)
- 18 -
To reflect the foregoing,
An appropriate order will
be issued.
16
(...continued)
Commissioner, 67 T.C. 612, 617 (1977)). The burden of proof is
on the party claiming estoppel against the Government. Rule
142(a); Hofstetter v. Commissioner, supra at 701.
A key element required for an estoppel is reasonable
reliance on the acts or statements of the one against whom
estoppel is claimed. Norfolk S. Corp. v. Commissioner, 104 T.C.
13, 60 (1995), affd. 140 F.3d 240 (4th Cir. 1998); Hofstetter v.
Commissioner, supra at 700. Although respondent provided
participants with information about the original settlement
agreements, participants were not entitled to rely upon this
information as a legal guaranty from respondent that such
settlement agreements would fit squarely within the requirements
of sec. 6224(c)(2) and the temporary regulation. Moreover, even
if participants did so rely, their reliance was not reasonable.
Thus, participants have not shown that estoppel applies against
respondent.
- 19 -
APPENDIX
Partnership/Docket No. Participants
Greenberg Brothers Partnership #4, John M. Kash
a.k.a. Breathless Associates-- Gerald N. and Margie L. Cooper
19575-91 Helen (Maude) L. Shepler
Jack and Shirlee Pines
James D. and Mary Kay Hudson
Dale C. and Sarah L. Hudson
Margaret A. Hudson
Dennis C. and Kellie S. Hudson
John A. and Maria A. Barnett
Greenberg Brothers Partnership #12, Wilderness Village Properties
a.k.a. Lone Wolf McQuade Associates-- Lyman F. Bush
22780-91 Robert G. Wekell
Murray D. and Bonnie B. Nelson
Warren A. Secord
Richard K. Baker
Edwin A., Jr. and Karin M. Locke
Dick E. and Janet R. Jones
Shirley M. and Lois B. Wekell
Herman M. and Gloria R. Nirschl
Stephen O. and Lynn M. Roberts
William H. Bratton
James A. and Patricia A. Grever
Robert A. Mandich
William M. and Rose Marie Wagner
Douglas C. and Robin T. Larson
William Edward Duncan
Easy Money Associates--29878-91 Albert Louis Wade, Jr.
David D. & Joyce N. Fagerland
Henry W. and Patricia D. Bates
Charles W. and Naomi J. Yett
George R. Blitch
Lynn F. Cassidy
Ronald Braunschweig
Cinema '84--621-92 Friar Tuck Partners
Lyman F. Bush
C. William and Charlotte I. Clay
Edwin A., Jr. and Karin M. Locke
Dick E. and Janet R. Jones
Mohan S. and Kalyani Phanse
Jack and Shirley Pines
John M. and Mary D. Kash
Henry J. and Shirlene Romain
Tommy S. Shelton
Raymond and Develya Cox
Jeffrey Dubnow
Stephanie Lite
Francis Dan and Mary Day Whitehurst
James S. Greenwood
- 20 -
Kenneth G. and Patricia Gamble
Jerry R. and Marlynne Olson
Roger A. and Rebecca M. Myklebust
Richard J. and Patricia Panicco
Karl E. Epstein
Charles and Jane Osborn
First Blood Associates--623-92, Joe A. Clements
13014-92, 15641-92, and 12062-94 Joseph E. and Bernice L. Goodwin
Don R. and Patsy A. Slaughter
Charles W. and Collette L. Russell
Vincent L. and Marilyn L. Mogas
Hurdle H., Jr. and Frances J. Lea
William L. Green
Thomas L. and Lynda L. Arnold
Lance H. and Franzel S. Bondy*
David D. and Betty A. Maytag
Glenna Goodacre
Louis F., Jr. and Cynthia B. Wood
William H. Bratton
Charles S. and Julie Filleman
Richard K. Baker
Ronald and Elaine Altman
Barry J. MacNeal
Michael J. and Jo Ann Scarfia
Stephen O. and Lynn M. Roberts
Thomas M. Nixon
Under Fire Associates--3968-92 Louis D. Cross
C. William and Charlotte I. Clay
Charles W. and Collette L. Russell
Howard W. and Carole L. Neuner
Cinema '85--4432-92 Jack P. McCarthy
Roger A. and Rebecca M. Myklebust
Thomas L. and Miriam Holt
Paul E. and Kathleen A. Weaver
Wallace and Maria Steinberg
William A. Newman
Karl E. Epstein
Lawrence C. Board
* Only as to the Motion for Entry of Order to Compel Respondent to Extend
Offers of Consistent Settlement filed in each of the First Blood Associates
cases.