- 7 - deferral sought by the Executor is directly contrary to the terms of the parties' Stipulation. Subsequent to that case, Congress provided an alternative for relief in similar cases. See sec. 7481(d); Rule 262. Executor agreed with respondent to settle the case according to the terms of that Stipulation. Two of these terms are that: (1) “Petitioner shall produce the documentation necessary to substantiate the [additional administration] expenses referred to in paragraph 4(b) on or before January 15, 1996," and (2) “A decision document in the above-entitled case shall be filed on or before April 15, 1996.” In entering into these terms, as well as the Stipulation in general, both Executor and respondent agreed to concede some rights which each might have asserted against the other. See Saigh v. Commissioner, 26 T.C. 171, 177 (1956). The Stipulation, like a contract, binds both parties to the terms thereof, Stamos v. Commissioner, 87 T.C. 1451, 1455 (1986), and must be enforced by this Court unless justice requires that we do otherwise, see Adams v. Commissioner, 85 T.C. 359, 375 (1985); Sennett v. Commissioner, 69 T.C. 694 (1978); Saigh v. Commissioner, supra. Under the facts at hand, justice does not require that we do otherwise. The Stipulation, voluntarily entered in to as a settlement of this lawsuit, must be given binding effect. The parties struck a bargain in the Stipulation, and Executor must live with the benefits and burdens of it. Accordingly, we will grant respondent’s motion for entry of decision based on her proposed decision. We have considered allPage: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011