- 15 -
of Quirk v. Commissioner, 60 T.C. 520, 521 (1973).10 This is
particularly true if the party has disregarded those procedures
intentionally.
As we have already stated, petitioners' counsel should not
have executed the stipulated decision and waited to file the
instant motions until 89 days after its entry if he did not
intend the stipulated decision to be conclusive as to litigation
costs. However, by so doing, he signaled to the Court, as well
as respondent, that all of the issues in the case, specifically
including the issue of litigation costs, had been resolved by the
parties. As a consequence, the Court struck this case from the
February 28, 1994, trial session in San Diego. In contrast, if a
stipulation of settled issues had been filed, the Court would
have known that the issue of litigation costs remained in the
case and might have been able to entertain that issue at the San
Diego trial session. Regardless, the fact remains that the
integrity of the Court's Rules was compromised through
10 "The Rules of this Court were adopted for serious reasons
and are not to be taken lightly. Time limitations, for example,
are necessary to ensure the speedy and efficient disposition of
cases so that evidence and witnesses will not grow stale.
Litigation before this Court would be significantly slowed if we
routinely countenanced violations of the time limitations set by
our Rules. And, of course, respondent must be held to the same
strict observance of the Rules that we require of taxpayers."
Estate of Quirk v. Commissioner, 60 T.C. 520, 521 (1973).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011