- 3 -
Respondent has prepared decision documents,2 but petitioner
refuses to sign them because, he alleges, he did not realize
$25,605 of discharge of indebtedness income during 1990.
Respondent determined that petitioner realized this income in
1990, and she included this determination in the subject notice
of deficiency.
Discussion
Petitioner alleges that he is not liable for tax on the
discharge of indebtedness income determined by respondent because
the indebted property was involuntarily taken from him by
foreclosure. We need not and do not consider petitioner’s
allegation concerning his surrender of the indebted property.
Whether the property was involuntarily taken from him by
foreclosure, which petitioner states would not result in taxable
income, is of no importance to the decision that we must enter
herein. What is important is that petitioner and respondent
agreed to settle their case on the terms and conditions
memorialized in the record. The parties’ agreement is a
contract, governed and enforced by general principles of contract
law. Like contracts, stipulations of settlement bind the parties
thereto to the terms thereof. Stamos v. Commissioner, 87 T.C.
2 The decision documents reflect the fact that respondent
conceded approximately 53 percent and approximately 47 percent of
the deficiencies that she determined for petitioner’s 1990 and
1991 taxable years, respectively.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011