First Blood Associates, Richard M. Greenberg, Tax Matters Partner, et al. - Page 13

                                       - 13 -                                         

          Without the requirement of a formal written agreement, respondent           
          anticipates confusion and judicial inefficiency: disputes will              
          arise over whether there was a settlement and will necessitate              
          judicial review as to whether there was a settlement and the                
          terms thereof.  Since respondent and the Goodwins have not                  
          executed either form, respondent contends that they have not                
          entered into a settlement agreement.                                        
               While respondent's position may have the advantages                    
          respondent attributes to it, we believe that it is unnecessary to           
          decide that issue in the circumstances presented here.11  Where             
          settlement is conditioned upon the execution of respondent's                
          forms, the execution of such forms controls resolution of whether           
          a settlement agreement was in fact made.  See, e.g., Estate of              
          Ray v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1995-561, affd. 112 F.3d 194 (5th           
          Cir. 1997); see also Brookstone Corp. v. United States, 74 AFTR             
          2d 94-6025, 94-2 USTC par. 50,474 (S.D. Tex. 1994), affd. per               

          settle TEFRA cases.  See, e.g., Pack v. United States, 992 F.2d             
          955, 956 (9th Cir. 1993); Monge v. United States, 27 Fed. Cl.               
          720, 722 n.3 (1993).  In addition, we have held that a Form 870-P           
          qualifies as a settlement agreement under sec. 6224(c).  Korff v.           
          Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1993-33.                                           
                    Respondent also argues that even if there were a                  
          binding settlement offer the Goodwins' acceptance was not timely.           
          Given our disposition of the issue, we see no reason to resolve             
          that question, and for our purposes here we assume that Mr.                 
          Redding's letter was timely.                                                

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011