- 15 -
adequately disclosed the lump-sum credit to respondent. In their
reply brief, petitioners argue that they had attached a copy of
Mr. Logsdon's Form 1099R from the OPM to their tax return, and
such an attachment serves as adequate disclosure. The parties,
however, stipulated that petitioners reported $11,808 of Mr.
Logsdon's lump-sum credit as income but that the return contains
no other entries or references to the balance of $51,065.
The interpretation of a stipulation is determined primarily
by ascertaining the intent of the parties, and such intent is a
question of fact. Stamos v. Commissioner, 87 T.C. 1451, 1455
(1986). Ordinarily, a stipulation of fact is binding on the
parties, and we are constrained to enforce it. Rule 91. We
shall not permit a party to a stipulation to qualify, change, or
contradict the stipulation except where justice requires. Rule
91(e). The Court may modify or set aside a stipulation that is
clearly contrary to the facts revealed on the record. Cal-Maine
Foods, Inc. v. Commissioner, 93 T.C. 181, 195 (1989).
Petitioners' position seeks to qualify the otherwise
unambiguous stipulations. Petitioners have not argued that
justice requires that we permit them to qualify the stipulations.
There is no evidence in the record to support petitioners'
contention that Mr. Logsdon's Form 1099R was attached to their
return. The parties filed a copy of petitioners' 1991 return as
a joint exhibit. No Form 1099R attachment was included with that
exhibit. Accordingly, we conclude that petitioners did not
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011