- 7 -
mutual mistake, or some similar ground. A mistake by one of the
parties alone is not a sufficient ground to vacate a settlement
agreement. Stamm Intl. Corp. v. Commissioner, 90 T.C. 315, 320-
321 (1988).
Moreover, we “will not permit a party to a stipulation to
qualify, change, or contradict a stipulation in whole or in part,
except * * * where justice requires”, Rule 91(e), or “unless good
cause is shown.” Saigh v. Commissioner, 26 T.C. 171, 176 (1956).
Factors to consider include the injury to the opposing party and
the amount of inconvenience to the Court if the stipulation were
set aside or modified, as well as the possible injustice to the
moving party if the stipulation were enforced. Adams v.
Commissioner, 85 T.C. 359, 375 (1985). More stringent standards
to modify or set aside a settlement stipulation shall apply when
a trial is canceled as a result of the stipulation. Stamm Intl.
Corp. v. Commissioner, supra at 321. In such cases, the parties
are held to their agreement without regard to whether the
judgment is correct on the merits. Id. at 322.
In the present consolidated cases, the stipulation of
settled issues is valid. It was signed by all parties and filed
with the Court on May 14, 2002. It is comprehensive,
encompassing both consolidated cases, covering all taxable years
in issue, and disposing of all issues raised by the statutory
notice of deficiency dated January 27, 1999.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011