-2-
underlying his requested decision.1 Petitioners object to
respondent’s motion, asserting, as we understand it, that the
decision to be entered in this case should be based not on the
settlement stipulation but on figures computed by respondent
during settlement negotiations. Respondent has filed with the
Court a reply to petitioners’ opposition. For the reasons stated
herein, we shall grant respondent’s motion.
A controversy before this Court may be settled by the
parties through stipulation. See Dorchester Indus. Inc. v.
Commissioner, 108 T.C. 320, 329 (1997), affd. without published
opinion 208 F.3d 205 (3d Cir. 2000). In that a stipulation is
essentially a contract, see Stamos v. Commissioner, 87 T.C. 1451,
1455 (1986), general principles of contract law determine whether
a settlement has been reached and, if so, whether the stipulation
is binding and enforceable, see Dorchester Indus. Inc. v.
Commissioner, supra at 330. Under such principles, we enforce a
stipulation of settlement that has led to the cancellation of the
trial, absent a showing of lack of formal consent, fraud, mutual
mistake, or some similar ground; a mistake by just one party to a
stipulation of settlement is not a sufficient ground to disregard
the stipulation. See Dorchester Indus. Inc. v. Commissioner,
1 The parties agree on the decision to be entered in each of
the other five referenced cases.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011