- 6 -
not bear out petitioners’ allegation. Based on the notice of
deficiency and respondent’s trial memorandum, it is clear that
respondent’s trial position was essentially the same as the one
expressed in Estate of Davis v. Commissioner, supra. Even though
respondent’s litigation position in Estate of Davis did not come
to petitioners’ attention until after a basis for settlement had
been reached, petitioners were aware of respondent’s trial
memorandum at the time of settlement. Accordingly, to the extent
that there was a mistake of fact or misunderstanding about
respondent’s trial position in this case, it would have been
petitioners’ unilateral mistake or misunderstanding. It is also
noted that there was no mistake about the terms of the settlement
between the parties or the underlying facts. The alleged mistake
is about the Government’s litigating position.
Petitioners, relying on Stamm Intl. Corp. v. Commissioner,
90 T.C. 315, 320-321 (1988), contend that respondent’s counsel
made an affirmative misrepresentation as to respondent’s
litigating position. Petitioners contend that they relied on the
misrepresentation and that grounds exist for relief from the
settlement stipulation. See also Saigh v. Commissioner, 26 T.C.
171, 180 (1956), where the Court recognized that “Excusable
damaging reliance upon a false or untrue representation of the
other party, even one innocently made, is a recognized ground for
relief from a settlement stipulation.”
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011