- 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