- 27 - agreement with the Department of Justice in connection with Laney’s Court of Claims suit.9 We hold for respondent on this issue. B. With Respondent Petitioners argued at trial that they had entered into a binding settlement agreement with respondent for the years in issue. Petitioners explained that they believed perhaps respondent had settled their case without their knowledge. Respondent contends that the parties in the instant case did not enter into a binding settlement agreement. We agree with respondent. Petitioners were aware that they did not have a binding settlement agreement with the Appeals officer. Petitioners’ letter to the Secretary of Treasury illustrates that, when they wrote that letter, petitioners did not believe that they had a binding settlement agreement with respondent. Petitioners rely on documents in which one or more of respondent’s employees refer to binding settlement agreements. Testimony was presented by respondent’s employees as to how it came to be that respondent advised the Secretary of the Treasury that the Secretary could not enter into a closing agreement under 9 Thus it is not necessary to decide whether, if the Justice Department had made an agreement with petitioners, that agreement would be binding on respondent. See Graff v. Commissioner, 74 T.C. 743 (1980), affd. 673 F.2d 784 (5th Cir. 1982).Page: Previous 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011