- 6 -
issue in the case, in an attempt to oust this Court of
jurisdiction over the entire case.
Section 7121(b)(2) provides that in any legal proceeding, a
closing agreement "shall not be annulled, modified, set aside, or
disregarded." Petitioners' position appears to be that since the
parties settled using the closing agreement, the Tax Court is
deprived of the power to determine the amount of the deficiency.
In the motion for leave to amend their petition, petitioners
argue, in substance, that by affirmatively pleading the closing
agreement, the Court would be without jurisdiction and would be
required to dismiss the case. According to petitioners, a
closing agreement coupled with affirmative pleading ousts the Tax
Court of jurisdiction pursuant to section 7121(b).
Petitioners challenge only the enforcement of the closing
agreement by this Court. They do not respond to the Government's
position that their case is factually indistinguishable from
Thornock v. Commissioner, 94 T.C. 439 (1990), or Waters v.
Commissioner, supra. Nor do they contest the amount of the
deficiency agreed to in the closing agreement. But they do press
the highly dubious contention that even though this Court
obtained jurisdiction by the filing of their petition (on
September 8, 1986), it would be divested of jurisdiction by the
subsequent (March 1988) closing agreement.2
2 In substance, by preventing this Court from entering a
(continued...)
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011