Michael R. and Sheila Olsen - Page 3




                                        - 3 -                                         
          willingness to entertain a motion for decision.  Petitioners both           
          responded in the affirmative.  The Court then inquired whether              
          petitioners understood the amount of net tax that would result              
          from the agreement.  Sheila Olsen responded:  "Yes.  They told              
          us.  He gave us an idea."                                                   
               Respondent sent petitioners a proposed decision document               
          supported by a calculation of the deficiency in income tax.                 
          Petitioners refused to execute the decision document.                       
          Consequently, respondent filed a motion for entry of decision on            
          June 30, 1999.  Respondent contends that we should enter a                  
          decision that reflects the terms orally stipulated by the                   
          parties.  Respondent submitted a calculation of tax that reflects           
          the specific terms of the settlement on which the parties orally            
          agreed.                                                                     
               Rule 91(e), Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure,                 
          concerning stipulation for trial, provides in part:                         
               A stipulation shall be treated, to the extent of its                   
               terms, as a conclusive admission by the parties to the                 
               stipulation, unless otherwise permitted by the Court or                
               agreed upon by those parties.  The Court will not                      
               permit a party to a stipulation to qualify, change, or                 
               contradict a stipulation in whole or in part, except                   
               that it may do so where justice requires.  * * *                       
               This Court regularly enforces a settlement stipulation                 
          (whether written or orally stipulated into the record) unless for           
          reasons of justice a party should be relieved from that                     
          stipulation.  See Cataldo v. Commissioner, 476 F.2d 628 (2d Cir.            
          1973), affg. per curiam T.C. Memo. 1971-219; Adams v.                       




Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011