- 2 -
extensions of the time within which the parties were to provide
the Court with a decision document reflecting their settlement,
petitioners, on October 20, 1998, filed a motion to calendar for
trial, alleging that the settlement was disabled because of a
mutual mistake or an affirmative misrepresentation concerning
respondent’s position. The questions we must consider are
whether the parties had a binding settlement, and, if they did,
whether petitioners remain bound to the terms of the parties’
agreement. If either question is decided favorably for
petitioners, then petitioners will be relieved from the agreement
to settle.
Background
On several occasions, the parties reported to the Court that
a basis for settlement had been reached in this case. No
document setting forth the particulars of the settlement was
provided to the Court. The settlement agreement, as described by
respondent, was that respondent would concede the increased
deficiency claimed in the amendment to answer and petitioners
would concede the deficiency determined in the notice of
deficiency. The parties’ concessions concern corporate stock
that was part of the gross estate. The issue of which
petitioners complain involves the amount of discount to the value
of corporate stock that would be attributable to possible capital
gains tax on the sale or liquidation of the corporation’s assets.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011