- 2 -
documents and shares them with respondent. We hold that we shall
not. Section references are to the Internal Revenue Code for the
year in issue.
Background
Respondent determined a $59,114 deficiency in petitioner's
1995 Federal income tax and additions thereto of $2,662.95 and
$3,205.33 under sections 6651(a)(1) and 6654, respectively.
While residing in Illinois petitioner petitioned the Court to
redetermine these amounts. The Court set this case for trial in
Chicago, Illinois, on March 20, 2000. On the date set for trial
the parties filed the stipulation, and the Court ordered that the
stipulated decision document be submitted to the Court by April
19, 2000. Petitioner now refuses to sign the decision document,
asserting that he has recently become aware that documents may
exist which support the allegations set out in his petition.
Petitioner asserts:
petitioner believes that the financial records and
information [alleged to be newly discovered but not in
petitioner’s possession] will indicate that the taxable
income amounts, related tax liability, and interest and
penalty previously conceded in the stipulation of
settled issues, are inaccurate and petitioner is harmed
by conceding to such amounts.
Petitioner does not move the Court to vacate the stipulation1 but
1Even assuming arguendo, that petitioner is making such a
motion through his response to respondent's motion for entry of
decision, we would deny the motion under the rationale of Stamm
Intl. Corp. v. Commissioner, 90 T.C. 315, 321 (1988)
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011