- 11 -
circumstances. In Cluck we held that the taxpayer’s husband
would be precluded, by the duty of consistency, from contending
that he had a basis in the inherited property of more than the
$355,000 amount used in settling the estate tax litigation. Id.
at 333. We then went on to hold that the taxpayer should be
bound by her husband’s stipulation in the circumstances of that
case. In the instant cases we do not find, and petitioner does
not contend, that respondent has benefited, fairly or unfairly,
by the stipulations in Betsy’s dockets as to the claimed
concessions.
As a result, Cluck is irrelevant to the instant cases,
except by way of contrast.
Finally, petitioner contends that our recent Court-reviewed
opinion in Dorchester Indus. Inc. v. Commissioner, 108 T.C. 320
(1997), supports his contention that respondent’s counsel--
must live with the words he drafted in Stipulations filed
with the Court, regardless of his intention unless
[respondent’s counsel] can show extreme facts, which would
entitle him to avoid a judgment.
Respondent does not seek in these proceedings to repudiate
the stipulations of settled issues in Betsy’s dockets; we do not,
in our determination herein, relieve respondent of any of those
stipulations. We merely conclude that, under the language of
those stipulations petitioner is not entitled to the claimed
concessions.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011