- 24 -
deficiencies (netting), were agreed upon no later than January
1988. Accordingly, the parties are bound by the settlement
agreement.
B. Absence of Closing Agreement Inconsequential
Respondent contends that a closing agreement is necessary for
settling nondocketed years. Accordingly, respondent continues, the
absence of a properly executed closing agreement herein indicates
that a settlement of petitioners' 1979-83 tax years (which were not
docketed at the time the settlement was made) did not occur.
We disagree. Sections 7121 and 7122 do not require a closing
agreement form to settle a case pending before this Court. See,
e.g., Lamborn v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1994-515; Haiduk v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1990-506. Petitioners' 1978 tax year was
docketed at the time of settlement. Although petitioners' 1979-83
tax years were not docketed at the time of settlement, the
deficiencies for those years related to the same investment to
which the deficiency for 1978 related. Moreover, section 301.7121-
1(d)(1), Proced. & Admin. Regs., provides that a request for a
closing agreement may be made at any time "before a case with
respect to the tax liability involved is docketed in the Tax Court
of the United States." However, a closing agreement is not a
prerequisite for a valid settlement. Although we believe the
settlement for the years involved in this case should have been
Page: Previous 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011