- 8 -
record, but Petitioner does not presently have a transcript
copy to attach hereto.
5. In light of Petitioner's intent, the direction of
Judge Couvillion and Petitioner's right to due process,
Petitioner desires that this case proceed to trial on other
issues, and that Respondent's Motion for Entry of Decision
be denied.
Petitioner misconstrues what the Court said or indicated at
the time the stipulation was filed. The Court intended to allow
petitioner the opportunity to litigate other issues in the
instant case, which were unrelated to the issues in the 1987
case, if there were any unrelated issues. At the time, the Court
had not compared the opinions of this Court and the Court of
Appeals as to the 1987 case with the pleadings in the instant
case for the years 1988, 1989, and 1990. A review of both court
opinions regarding petitioner's 1987 tax year and the pleadings
in the instant case for the subsequent years indicates that there
are no unrelated issues to be heard. The instant case involves
the same issue that was decided by this Court and affirmed by the
Court of Appeals. Kochansky v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1994-
160, affd. in part, revd. in part 92 F.3d 957 (9th Cir. 1996).
The stipulation in the instant case states unequivocally that the
parties agreed "to be bound to the final outcome" of the 1987
case. There were no qualifying conditions or provisions in the
stipulation of the instant case that would allow petitioner to
assert a different legal theory as to the character of the income
at issue for the years 1988, 1989, and 1990.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011