- 7 -
In Dorchester Indus. Inc. v. Commissioner, 108 T.C. at 330,
we stated, quoting Manko v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1995-10,
that:
For almost a century, it has been settled that
voluntary settlement of civil controversies is in high
judicial favor. Williams v. First Natl. Bank, 216 U.S. 582,
595 (1910); St. Louis Mining & Milling Co. v. Montana Mining
Co., 171 U.S. 650, 656 (1898). A valid settlement, once
reached, cannot be repudiated by either party, and after the
parties have entered into a binding settlement agreement,
the actual merits of the settled controversy are without
consequence. This Court has declined to set aside a
settlement duly executed by the parties and filed with the
Court in the absence of fraud or mutual mistake. Stamm
Intl. Corp. v. Commissioner, 90 T.C. 315 (1988); Spector v.
Commissioner, 42 T.C. 110 (1964). However, a court will not
force a settlement on parties where no settlement was
intended. Autera v. Robinson, 419 F.2d 1197 (D.C. Cir.
1969).
When we examine the language used and the surrounding
circumstances, we see that the stipulations of settled issues in
Betsy’s dockets are styled “Betsy S. Grossman, Petitioner” and
show the docket numbers of Betsy’s dockets in the headings; they
do not show petitioner’s name or the docket numbers of his cases
in their headings. Although Betsy’s petitions result from joint
notices of deficiency, Betsy’s dockets deal only with Betsy’s
deficiencies and not with petitioner’s deficiencies. The
stipulations of settled issues in Betsy’s dockets purport to be
agreements between the parties in those dockets; petitioner is
not and never was a party in those dockets.
In the context of the foregoing, the simplest and most
direct interpretation of Betsy’s and the Commissioner’s
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011