- 18 -
taxpayer's attempt to construct a different settlement, it did
redetermine the amount of interest owed, as recalculated by
respondent, which was lower than the amount which had been
assessed and paid.
We must, therefore, determine whether the omission of the
amounts of 1979 ITC from the 1994 computations was a result of
unilateral or mutual mistake. In respondent's initial notice of
objection to petitioner's motion, respondent conceded that the
ITC amounts were inadvertently left out of the 1994 computations:
Respondent agrees that, on the basis of information now
available, respondent would have agreed to the
computations petitioner now advocates, had the matter
been raised in 1994 when the computation on remand was
being prepared.
In a supplemental notice of objection to petitioner's motion, and
on brief, respondent recants this concession, because, "upon
further consideration", respondent contends that the 1994
computations "correctly reflect the application of payments and
credits to the deficiencies determined therein." Thus,
respondent does not deny that a mistake was originally made, but
rather contends that the mistake led to what respondent now
believes is the correct result, and therefore is not a mistake on
respondent's part. As a consequence, respondent seeks to enforce
the 1994 computations as submitted on the ground that only a
unilateral mistake was involved.
Stipulations are treated under general principles of
contract law. Stamos v. Commissioner, 87 T.C. 1451, 1455 (1986).
Page: Previous 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011