- 11 -
terms thereof. Since respondent and the Nirschls have not
executed either form, respondent contends that they have not
entered into a settlement agreement.
While respondent's position may have the advantages that
respondent attributes to it, we believe that it is unnecessary to
decide that issue in the circumstances presented here. 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
curiam without published opinion 58 F.3d 637 (5th Cir 1995). We
turn to the question whether the settlement was so conditioned.
The Nirschls were never involved directly in the settlement
negotiations. Those negotiations were done by Messrs. Long,
Faber, and Noumair. Mr. Long testified that he intended that in
order to consummate any settlement with the partners, a Form 870-
P and/or a closing agreement would be executed by the taxpayer or
the taxpayer's representative. This was consistent with Mr.
Faber's understanding when he was involved with the case that
further documents would have to be executed. The only other
person with direct knowledge of what happened during this time
was Mr. Noumair, and he did not testify. We have no reason to
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011