- 25 -
case in the settlement proposal; indeed, it appears that the 1994
docketed case was included in the settlement proposal at Frank
Wheaton’s request in order to settle as many tax years as
possible. Frank Wheaton cannot assert that he was not fully
cognizant of the terms for settling the 1994 docketed case or
that he did not approve that settlement. In fact, beyond the
assignments of error and averments in the petition, he has failed
to argue that there is any merit to his claims with respect to
the 1994 docketed case. He has not informed us what witnesses he
would call, what they would testify to, or what other evidence he
would present. All we know is that Frank Wheaton changed his
mind with respect to settling that case. Frank Wheaton has
failed to prove that any injustice would result by holding him to
his bargain, and he has failed to convince us that we should
exercise our discretion to modify the settlement agreement as it
applies to the 1994 docketed case.
Finally, we are not compelled to allow Frank Wheaton to
repudiate the settlement agreement with respect to the 1994
docketed case because of what we said in Cole v. Commissioner, 30
T.C. 665, 674 (1958), affd. 272 F.2d 13 (2d Cir. 1959). In the
Cole case, we refused to redetermine deficiencies in accord with
certain proposed stipulations that we found had not been executed
by the Commissioner and had not been filed in the Court as
stipulations. After finding that the proposed stipulations had
Page: Previous 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011