- 5 -
On September 23, 1993, while negotiations between the
parties were ongoing, the Court served the parties with notice
that this case would be called for trial at the Court's trial
session scheduled to commence on February 28, 1994, in San Diego.
In late September or early October 1993, respondent's
Appeals Office, after a period of consultation with respondent's
attorneys in both San Diego and Washington, D.C., decided to
concede the deficiency, additions to tax, and additional interest
as determined in the notice of deficiency and so notified
petitioners' counsel. Sometime thereafter, respondent sent a
settlement document to petitioners' counsel for his review and
signature.
The settlement document was a standard stipulated decision
consisting of a form of decision, which embodied respondent's
concession of the deficiency, additions to tax, and additional
interest, and a stipulation to be signed by counsel for the
parties agreeing to entry of the form of decision by the Court.
The stipulated decision was silent regarding litigation costs.
Petitioners' counsel reviewed the stipulated decision and
revised its language.4 In revising the language, petitioners'
counsel did not introduce the issue of litigation costs.
4 The nature of the revision made by petitioners' counsel
appears to relate to the description of the additions to tax and
additional interest addressed in the stipulated decision.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011