- 13 -
Stipulation 10 of the stipulation of facts states that Mrs.
King executed a Form 8332 in favor of Mr. Lopez “for taxable year
1987 and all years thereafter.” Despite this stipulation,
respondent claimed for the first time at trial, and subsequently
argued on brief, that the Form 8332 is ambiguous because Mrs.
King “did not specify particular future years” or write “all”
future years.11 The Kings also dispute the stipulation, claiming
that Mrs. King did not release her claim to the exemption
deductions because the Form 8332 was signed under duress and she
was not aware what the form was until the instant proceeding
began.
Rule 91(a)(1) generally requires the parties to stipulate to
the fullest extent all matters not privileged which are relevant
to the case, regardless of whether such matters involve fact or
opinion or the application of the law to fact. Stipulations are
binding on the parties to the stipulation, unless the parties
agree otherwise or the Court relieves a party from the binding
effect “where justice requires.” Rule 91(e). The parties have
11The notices of deficiency do not discuss the validity of
the Form 8332 executed by Mrs. King. Additionally, respondent
did not raise this issue in either the answer or the trial
memorandum as a ground for denying the dependency exemption
deductions to the Lopezes. Indeed, in the trial memorandum,
respondent indicates that if the special support test can apply
to unmarried parents, then Mr. Lopez is entitled to the
dependency exemption deductions unless Mrs. King can establish
that she signed the Form 8332 under duress. Respondent has
consistently taken the position that the form was not signed
under duress.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011