- 17 -
and petitioner cannot now seek to be relieved of its stipulation.
According to respondent, petitioner cut a deal and is now stuck
with it. According to petitioner, the amounts of ITC in
discussion were included in the 1992 computations but, as a
result of mutual inadvertence, then left out of the 1994
computations.13
It is clear that we may reopen an otherwise valid settlement
agreement based on the existence of mutual mistake. Callen v.
Pennsylvania R. Co., 332 U.S. 625, 630 (1948); Dorchester Indus.
Inc. v. Commissioner, 108 T.C. 320, 334 (1997). We may also
relieve a party of a stipulation where justice requires. Cf.
Rule 91(e); Adams v. Commissioner, 85 T.C. 359, 375 (1985); Shaw
v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1991-372 n.3. On the other hand,
unilateral mistake is generally not a ground for reforming a
settlement or stipulation. Stamm Intl. Corp. v. Commissioner, 90
T.C. 315, 320 (1988); see Markin v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo.
1989-665. It is also clear that the mere fact that a decision
which has become final is based on a stipulation does not bar the
application of section 7481(c). In Stauffacher v. Commissioner,
97 T.C. 453 (1991), the underlying issues had been resolved on
the basis of a stipulated decision. While the Court rejected the
13 We note that the Court of Appeals for the Seventh
Circuit did not address any issue or otherwise take any action in
respect of the application of carrybacks in the 1992
computations.
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011