- 17 -
Partnership) that was not substantially justified. See sec.
7430(c)(4)(B).
We reject respondent’s argument. The fact that parties to
litigation, in the manner and method by which they settle issues
and disputed tax adjustments, should take into account and should
anticipate the specific requirements of the mitigation provisions
is not new. We find no merit in respondent’s argument. See Hill
v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1957-2, in which a particular
adjustment was litigated solely in order to obtain an adverse
determination under the mitigation provisions necessary to open
an otherwise closed year.
No relevant material facts are in dispute in the instant
case regarding the content of the settlement stipulation filed
and the decision entered in the 1989 Fong case that would
preclude a ruling on the narrow issue presented to us in
petitioner’s motion. Under the terms of the settlement
stipulation that was filed with the Court and the decision that
was entered, no tax bases in the properties were determined by
the Court. The tax adjustments reflected therein clearly cannot
be said to encompass a determination by the Tax Court of
petitioner’s tax bases in the properties.
The possibility that petitioner and respondent, in settling
the 1989 Fong case, may have entered into further or additional
agreements not reflected in the stipulation of settlement or in
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011