- 8 -
stipulations as to the section 6653(b) addition for 1986 and the
section 6661 addition for 1985 is that the stipulations establish
and limit Betsy’s liabilities and not petitioner’s liabilities.
See supra note 5.
In Quinones v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1988-269, an opinion
to which petitioner has drawn our attention, we dealt with a
situation in which the taxpayer and the Commissioner agreed to a
settlement of the case before the Court. A condition of that
settlement was that the Commissioner act in a specified manner
with regard to a related dispute with another taxpayer. The
Commissioner’s counsel apparently decided that he had made a bad
bargain for his client and moved to vacate the stipulated
decision in the case before the Court. We denied the motion.
Thus, it is clear that a settlement in a case before the
Court can have, as part of the contract, an agreement as to
treatment of a different taxpayer in a different dispute.
However, in Quinones it was plain from the exchange of letters
that constituted the parties’ agreement, that resolution of the
other dispute was part of the quid pro quo of the agreement. In
contrast, we search in vain through the claimed concessions for
any reference to petitioner or the instant cases. Indeed, the
only references to petitioner or the instant cases that appear in
the stipulations of settled issues in Betsy’s dockets are those
that relate to Betsy’s entitlement to the benefit of certain
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011