- 13 -
reflects the parties' bargained-for exchange--each of the parties
made concessions in the course of arriving at the settlement.
See Saigh v. Commissioner, 26 T.C. 171, 177 (1956); Applestein v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1989-42. Considering all the
circumstances, it seems inescapable that to grant respondent's
pending motion would necessarily lead to the collapse of the
stipulated settlement. Recognizing that respondent was in
possession of all the facts necessary to raise the SRLY issue at
the time the deficiency notice was issued in this case, and
giving due regard to the policy favoring the settlement of cases
brought before this Court, we are convinced that justice would
best be served if respondent is precluded from raising a new
issue at this time, and we so hold.
In contrast, we conclude that justice requires that we grant
respondent's Motion for Leave to File Amendment to Answer filed
in docket No. 16170-94. Although 1 year elapsed between the time
of the filing of the petition in this case and the filing of
respondent's Motion for Leave to File Amendment to Answer, the
parties are in agreement that the general business credit issue
is a legal issue that will not require a trial for submission of
evidence. We also find it significant that, although the parties
have engaged in settlement discussions in docket No. 16170-94,
those discussions have not resulted in a settlement agreement in
any form. This case is not presently calendared for trial.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011