John S. Halpern - Page 8




                                         - 8 -                                           
          tax for any taxable period.”  Section 7121(b) provides, inter                  
          alia:                                                                          
                    SEC. 7121(b) Finality.-– * * * such agreement shall be               
               final and conclusive, and, except upon a showing of fraud or              
               malfeasance, or misrepresentation of a material fact-–                    
                          *    *    *    *     *    *    *                               
                          (2) in any suit, action, or proceeding, such                   
                    agreement * * * shall not be annulled, modified, set                 
                    aside, or disregarded.                                               
               An agreement under section 7121(a) is referred to as a                    
          closing agreement, and it is not disputed that petitioner                      
          executed such a closing agreement.  The issue is whether he is                 
          bound by that agreement.  Petitioner essentially makes two                     
          arguments.  First, he contends that the agreement should be set                
          aside because of misrepresentation of material fact by                         
          respondent.3  Second, he contends that, as we understand, under                
          the literal language of the agreement, he is not bound by the                  
          agreement.  We now turn to those issues.                                       
                         Misrepresentation of a Material Fact                            
               Petitioner contends that when he executed the closing                     
          agreement his attorney, Mr. Kamerman, was told by Harris E.                    
          Fisher (Mr. Fisher), the Appeals Officer handling his case, that               
          the Provizers were partners in RRA, when, in fact, they were                   
          partners in another partnership, Clearwater.  He further contends              


               3  Petitioner does not argue that respondent committed                    
          fraud.                                                                         





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011