Drake Oil Tech v. CIR

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
• Decided: April 14, 2000
• Docket: 98-9025
• Status: Published

Opinion

F I L E D United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS APR 14 2000 TENTH CIRCUIT PATRICK FISHER Clerk

DRAKE OIL TECHNOLOGY PARTNERS; FRANK E. ACIERNO,

Petitioners - Appellants, No. 98-9025 v. (T. C. No. 21530-87) (Appeal from U.S. Tax Court) COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE,

Respondent - Appellee.

Petitioners - Appellants, No. 98-9026 v. (T.C. No. 16768-88) (Appeal from U.S. Tax Court) COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE,

VANGUARD OIL TECHNOLOGY PARTNERS; DRAKE OIL TECHNOLOGY PARTNERS; DILLON OIL TECHNOLOGY PARTNERS; DERRINGER OIL TECHNOLOGY PARTNERS 1981; No. 98-9028 DERRINGER OIL TECHNOLOGY (T.C. Nos. 21530-87 & 16768-88) PARTNERS 1982; (Appeal from U.S. Tax Court) CROWN OIL TECHNOLOGY PARTNERS; CARLTON OIL TECHNOLOGY PARTNERS, LTD.; CHARLES R. MANGUM; MARILYN M. MANGUM; JAMES FORD HARVEY; MARTHA B. HARVEY; STEVE STROUBE; ELAINE STROUBE,

Petitioners - Appellants.

v.

COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE,

ROBERT F. JACOBSEN; MARILYN B. JACOBSEN; BRUCE A. FORSBERG; LINDA FORSBERG; TROY A. ATHON; DILLON OIL TECHNOLOGY PARTNERS,

No. 98-9029 Petitioners - Appellants, (T.C. No. 21530-87) (Appeal from U.S. Tax Court) v.

-2- ROBERT F. JACOBSEN; MARILYN B. JACOBSEN; BRUCE A. FORSBERG; LINDA FORSBERG; TROY A. ATHON; DILLON OIL TECHNOLOGY PARTNERS,

Petitioners - Appellants, No. 98-9030 (T.C. No. 16768-88) v. (Appeal from U.S. Tax Court) COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE,

TONY W. DIAL and CANDACE P. DIAL,

Petitioners - Appellants, No. 98-9031 v. (T.C. No. 31310-86) (Appeal from U.S. Tax Court) COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE,

SCOTT K. MONROE; BARBARA F. MONROE,

Petitioners - Appellants,

v. No. 98-9032 COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL (T.C. No. 4646-89) REVENUE, (Appeal from U.S. Tax Court)

-3- VULCAN OIL TECHNOLOGY PARTNERS; VANGUARD OIL TECHNOLOGY PARTNERS; DRAKE OIL TECHNOLOGY PARTNERS; DILLON OIL TECHNOLOGY PARTNERS; DERRINGER OIL TECHNOLOGY PARTNERS 1981; DERRINGER OIL TECHNOLOGY PARTNERS 1982; CROWNE OIL TECHNOLOGY PARTNERS; CARLTON OIL TECHNOLOGY PARTNERS, LTD; AMERICAN ENERGY RESOURCES, INC.; SCOTT K. MONROE; BARBARA F. MONROE; RAYMOND P. MEYER; GRETCHEN No. 98-9033 A. MEYER; WILLIAM D. GINN; (T.C. No. 16768-88) ARLENE D. GINN, (Appeal from U.S. Tax Court) Petitioners - Appellants,

VANGUARD OIL TECHNOLOGY PARTNERS; DILLON OIL TECHNOLOGY PARTNERS; CARLTON OIL TECHNOLOGY PARTNERS, LTD; SCOTT K. MONROE; BARBARA F. MONROE; RAYMOND P. MEYER; GRETCHEN A. MEYER; WILLIAM D. GINN; ARLENE D. GINN,

-4- Petitioners - Appellants,

v. No. 98-9034 (T.C. No. 21530-87) COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL (Appeal from U.S. Tax Court) REVENUE,

JOHN C. MEGNA; BEVERLY J. MEGNA,

Petitioners - Appellants, No. 98-9036 v. (T.C. No. 26785-86) (Appeal from U.S. Tax Court) COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE,

CARL BOSSOLA; ROSEMARIE BOSSOLA,

Petitioners - Appellants, No. 98-9038 v. (T.C. No. 20263-83) (Appeal from U.S. Tax Court) COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE,

-5- CARL BOSSOLA; ROSEMARIE BOSSOLA,

Petitioners - Appellants, No. 98-9039 v. (T.C. No. 36390-87) (Appeal from U.S. Tax Court) COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE,

MICHAEL L. MINTZ; LAURIE M. MINTZ,

Petitioners - Appellants, No. 98-9040 v. (T. C. No. 2709-86) (Appeal from U.S. Tax Court) COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE,

CARL S. BOSSOLA; ROSEMARIE BOSSOLA,

Petitioners - Appellants, No. 98-9041 v. (T.C. No. 37411-85) (Appeal from U.S. Tax Court) COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE,

-6- JACK SCHOELLERMAN; KATHERINE SCHOELLERMAN, DILLION OIL TECHNOLOGY PARTNERS; LARRY V. GRIDLEY; DAILA S. GRIDLEY; THOMAS L. SALIBA; BETTY R. SALIBA; SAMUEL W. PETERSON; B. L. PETERSON; GARY G. MORIKONE; DOROTHY MORIKONE; CROWNE OIL TECHNOLOGY PARTNERS; DONALD H. FRITTS; DRAKE OIL TECHNOLOGY PARTNERS, No. 98-9042 (T.C. No. 16768-88) Petitioners - Appellants, (Appeal from U.S. Tax Court) v.

ESTATE OF JAMES T. CAMPION, DECEASED, LEONA CAMPION, EXECUTRIX; LEONA CAMPION; GEORGE M. COLLINS, GRACE E. COLLINS; JAMES LOTTA; LYNNE M. LOTTA; ALDEN B. CHASE; EARLENE CHASE; THOMAS L. SALIBA; BETTY R. SALIBA; DWIGHT V. CALL; CHRISTINE G. CALL; MICHAEL RAFFERTY; No. 98-9043 MARY LEE RAFFERTY; (T.C. Nos. 12235-86, 32931-86, 4142- THEODORE L. SHEBS; ROSEMARY 87, 12476-87, 18986-87, 24227-87, L. SHEBS, 24013-88, 7300-89, 8272-89, & 18502-89) Petitioners - Appellants, (Appeal from U.S. Tax Court)

-7- v.

SAMUEL W. PETERSON; B.L. PETERSON; DILLON OIL TECHNOLOGY PARTNERS; GARY G. MORIKONE; DOROTHY MORIKONE; CROWNE OIL TECHNOLOGY PARTNERS; VICTOR HAY-ROE; LYNN HAY- No. 98-9044 ROE; DRAKE OIL TECHNOLOGY (T.C. Nos. 16768-88 & 21530-87) PARTNERS; DONALD H. FRITTS, (Appeal from U.S. Tax Court) LARRY B. GRIDLEY; DAILA S. GRIDLEY; RICHARD W. HARTMANN; REMEDIOS C. HATMANN; THOMAS L. SALIBA; BETTY R. SALIBA; ROY E. HANSON; RENEE B. HANSON; VANGUARD OIL TECHNOLOGY PARTNERS,

-8- GARY G. MORIKONE; DOROTHY MORIKONE,

Petitioners - Appellants, No. 98-9045 v. (T.C. No. 24725-89) (Appeal from U.S. Tax Court) COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE,

ALLEN V. BERGH; KAREN E. BERGH; PAUL E. JOHNSON; LOIS C. JOHNSON; STEVE LOO; GLORIA LOO; JOHN C. RIENSTRA; MARCHIENE RIENSTRA; EDWARD J. SAPKO; VIRGINIA SAPKO,

Petitioners,

and No. 98-9046 (T.C. No. 5830-88) VERA HUDSON; RAYMOND F. (Appeal from U.S. Tax Court) MEYER; GRETCHEN MEYER,

-9- JODH ARORA; VENNA ARORA; DILLON OIL TECHNOLOGY PARTNERS,

Petitioners - Appellants, No. 99-9000 (T.C. No. 21530-87) v. (Appeal from U.S. Tax Court) COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE,

JODH ARORA; VENNA ARORA; DILLON OIL TECHNOLOGY PARTNERS,

Petitioners - Appellants, No. 99-9001 (T.C. No. 16768-86) v. (Appeal from U.S. Tax Court) COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE,

GERALD N. NICKS; FLOY WINONA NICKS; N. H. SHANNON,

and No. 99-9003 JAMES H. CLEMENT; IDA L. (T.C. No. 23863-87) CLEMENT; W. RICHARD (Appeal from U.S. Tax Court) MORGAN; JANICE J. MORGAN;

-10- WILLIAM P. SANDLER; JOANNE P. SANDLER,

WILLIAM T. MINTER; SUSAN T. MINTER,

Petitioners - Appellants, No. 99-9004 v. (T.C. No. 40805-86) (Appeal from U.S. Tax Court) COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE,

RICHARD D. PAOLILLO; DOROTHY L. PAOLILLO,

Petitioners - Appellants, No. 99-9005 v. (T.C. No. 3037-87) (Appeal from U.S. Tax Court) COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE,

-11- RICHARD D. PAOLILLO; DOROTHY L. PAOLILLO,

Petitioners - Appellants, No. 99-9006 v. (T. C. No. 3852-88) (Appeal from U.S. Tax Court) COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE,

CLAY WOOD; MARCIA WOOD,

Petitioners - Appellants, No. 99-9007 v. (T.C. No. 32684-88) (Appeal from U.S. Tax Court) COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE,

Petitioners - Appellants, No. 99-9008 v. (T.C. No. 41934-86) (Appeal from U.S. Tax Court) COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE,

-12- GEORGE L. THOMPSON; OMAYMA THOMPSON,

Petitioners - Appellants, No. 99-9009 v. (T.C. No. 22214-86) (Appeal from U.S. Tax Court) COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE,

CLEMENS R. FROMLATH; HELENE FROMLATH,

Petitioners - Appellants, No. 99-9010 v. (T.C. No. 14545-88) (Appeal from U.S. Tax Court) COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE,

Petitioners - Appellants, No. 99-9011 v. (T.C. No. 39965-86) (Appeal from U.S. Tax Court) COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE,

-13- RICHARD D. PAOLILLO; DOROTHY L. PAOLILLO,

Petitioners - Appellants, No. 99-9013 v. (T.C. No. 28327-87) (Appeal from U.S. Tax Court) COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE,

EILEEN ZIMMERMAN; WILLIAM R. ZIMMERMAN,

Petitioners - Appellants, No. 99-9014 v. (T.C. No. 5757-89) (Appeal from U.S. Tax Court) COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE,

GARY G. MORIKONE; DOROTHY MORIKONE,

v. No. 99-9023 COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL (T.C. No. 32418-86) REVENUE, (Appeal from U.S. Tax Court)

-14- GARY G. MORIKONE; DOROTHY MORIKONE,

Petitioners - Appellants, No. 98-9024 v. (T.C. No. 14326-88) (Appeal from U.S. Tax Court) COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE,

Petitioners - Appellants, No. 99-9025 v. (T.C. No. 19427-89) (Appeal from U.S. Tax Court) COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE,

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. This court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.

-15- Before BRORBY, and LUCERO, Circuit Judges and WEST, Senior District Judge **.

After examining the materials on file, this panel has determined

unanimously that oral argument is not necessary. See Fed. R. App. P.

34(a)(2)(B); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The cases are therefore ordered submitted on

the current record.

In these appeals, petitioners challenge two orders of the tax court issued on

March 5, 1998. See Estate of Campion v. Comm’r, 110 T.C. 165 (1998); Vulcan

Oil Tech. Partners v. Comm’r, 110 T.C. 153 (1998). In those orders, the court

held the Commissioner did not breach any statutory or regulatory duties when it

failed to offer these appellants more favorable treatment following a failed tax-

shelter scheme. Specifically, the court held the Internal Revenue Service did not

breach its duty of disclosure under the Tax Equity and Responsibility Act of 1982

and that it did not commit fraud in failing to offer more favorable settlements to

these petitioners than to other taxpaying entities. These appeals followed.

Because of the numbers of individuals and partnerships involved in this

scheme, multiple entities filed notices of appeal from the tax court’s orders. In

total, this court received, either through transfer or originally, 45 appeals seeking

** The Honorable Lee R. West, Senior Judge, U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma, sitting by designation.

-16- review of the 1998 orders. In late 1998, this court ordered briefing in 8 lead

cases, which were then heard at oral argument in September, 1999. The

remainder were abated. 1 On November 2, 1999, this court issued an Order &

Judgment affirming the tax court in all respects. See Tucek v. Comm’r, Nos. 98-

9016, 98-9017, 98-9018, 98-9019, 98-9020, 98-9022, 98-9023, and 98-9024, (10th

Cir. Nov. 2, 1999).

On January 3, 2000, this court directed petitioners in these appeals to show

cause why the remaining cases were not controlled by the panel decision in Tucek.

In a response filed on January 24, appellants admitted that “the substance of the

issues is identical in all of the cases in this group.” See Petitioners’ Response,

dated January 24, 2000, at 2. In a pleading filed on February 17, 2000, the

government opined that the issues raised in all of the appeals are identical and

that summary affirmance is appropriate.

Upon careful review of the responses, as well as these files, we agree that

the issues presented in these matters are identical to those raised and addressed in

this panel’s Order & Judgment in Tucek. Consequently, we

1 Two notices of appeals were filed after this court issued its disposition in the lead cases. Those two appeals, numbers 99-9029 and 99-9039, both styled Dodson v. Comm’r, were not abated.

-17- AFFIRM the judgments of the tax court for substantially the same reasons as are

set forth in that panel decision. The mandates shall issue forthwith.

Entered for the Court

Per Curiam

-18-