- 16 -
Goldman v. Commissioner, 39 F.3d 402 (2d Cir. 1994), affg. T.C.
Memo. 1993-480. Absent wrongful, misleading conduct or mutual
mistake, we enforce a stipulation of settlement in accordance
with our interpretation of its written terms. Stamm Intl. Corp.
v. Commissioner, 90 T.C. 315 (1988); Scherr v. Commissioner, T.C.
Memo. 1990-225. Where the language of an agreement is
unambiguous, we look within the "four corners" of the instrument
to ascertain the intent of the parties. Goldman v. Commissioner,
supra; see Estate of Satin v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1994-435,
and Fisher v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1994-434, and cases cited
therein.
Petitioners first assert that the piggyback agreement
designates both of the Miller cases as test cases, instead of
just one, so as to extend the scope of the agreement to the years
at issue in those cases, such as 1982. In the Estate of Satin
and Fisher cases, we found that the piggyback agreement entitled
participant taxpayers to elect to accept the results of the
Miller cases or the Provizer case. There is no language in the
agreement extending the result of the controlling cases to any or
all cases of the participant taxpayers, not referenced in the
agreement, simply because they concern the same years addressed
in the controlling cases. Petitioners' theory as to why both
Miller cases were designated controlling cases is speculation
unsupported by the terms of the piggyback agreement.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011