- 20 -
experienced tax attorney, was misled in any way. See Baratelli
v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1994-484.
Additionally, in our view the proposed stipulation of agreed
adjustments, considered in context, only states the agreement of
the parties with respect to nonplastics issues and has no
application to the partnership level adjustments over which we
lack jurisdiction. Respondent's supervising attorney, exercising
proper caution, refused to deliver the document to opposing
counsel because of concern about possible misconstruction of the
terminology. Accordingly, the parties have agreed as to all
aspects of the proposed stipulation except the final numbered
paragraph. The construction sought by petitioner is erroneous;
respondent has not agreed to it; and we do not have jurisdiction
over the partnership level matters petitioner urges even if there
had been an agreement.
Accordingly, respondent's motion to dismiss for lack of
jurisdiction and to strike will be granted. Petitioner's motion,
designated as a motion to reopen record, will be denied except to
the extent of respondent's agreement to the first 2 paragraphs of
the proposed stipulation of agreed adjustments, as stated above.
The Efron II issues concerning a shopping center (the non-
TEFRA issues) have been resolved by stipulation of the parties.
Issues concerning partnership items and affected items (TEFRA
items) related to Efron II's investment in Dickinson are for
Page: Previous 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011