13
5150-91 through settlement. The stipulated decisions in docket
Nos. 4949-91 and 5150-91 were only a pro forma acceptance of an
agreement between Murphy and respondent. See United States v.
International Bldg. Co., 345 U.S. 502, 506 (1953). The
stipulated decisions do not indicate the reason for the
settlement. Moreover, litigants generally arrive at settlement
by mutual give and take. Petitioner Sands and respondent are
litigating the issues of this case for the first time.
Furthermore, a partner solely by reason of the partnership
relationship generally is not privy with the other partners,
since one partner's interest is not derived from another partner
but is an independent interest. Mathisen v. Commissioner, 22
T.C. 995, 998 (1954). It is Sands' tax liabilities, not
Murphy's, that are being asserted against her. The doctrines of
collateral estoppel and res judicata are inapplicable here.
C. Petitioners Murphy and Heller
1. Lone Star's Income in Taxable Year 1989 From the
Settlement With Electro
Respondent determined that Lone Star received $258,986 of
taxable income from Electro in 1989. To support this
determination, respondent relies on the following: Lone Star's
settlement agreement with Electro, a handwritten worksheet
attached to Lone Star's U.S. Partnership Return of Income (Form
1065) for the taxable year 1989, and a letter dated June 1, 1990,
from Murphy to Internal Revenue Service agent Ronald Sherman
(Sherman).
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011