- 7 -
Even if respondent’s counsel had orally stated the
Government’s litigating position as one where no discount of any
kind for “built-in capital gains” is permitted, with respondent’s
trial memorandum containing a contrary statement, it is hard to
understand how petitioners were misled or why the oral statement
was accepted over the written position. The very essence of the
parties’ controversy is sourced in their interpretations of law,
litigating positions, facts, cases, etc. If petitioners accepted
an oral representation of respondent’s best offer or litigating
position, we must assume that the offer was accepted after
considering petitioners’ chances for success in litigation.
We also recognize that this case had been calendared for
trial and that the Court had invested time in resolving certain
of the parties’ pretrial procedural disagreements. The parties
were released from their obligations to complete trial
preparation and\or to present their evidence only after they
advised the Court that the case had been settled. We shall treat
the settlement as binding in these circumstances. Dorchester
Indus. Inc. v. Commissioner, 108 T.C. 320 (1997).
To reflect the foregoing,
An appropriate order will be
issued denying petitioners' motion
to calendar.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Last modified: May 25, 2011