Michael Buchsbaum - Page 7




                                        - 7 -                                         
          unless wrongful misleading conduct or mutual mistake is shown,              
          Stamm Intl. Corp. v. Commissioner, 90 T.C. 315, 321-322 (1988),             
          or unless justice requires that we relieve a party of the                   
          stipulation, Rule 91(e); Korangy v. Commissioner, 893 F.2d 69               
          (4th Cir. 1990), affg. T.C. Memo. 1989-2; Adams v. Commissioner,            
          85 T.C. 359, 375 (1985).                                                    
               Petitioner did not contend on brief that he should not be              
          bound by the stipulation of settled issues.  Thus, we deem that             
          issue to be waived.  State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Mhoon, 31 F.3d           
          979, 984 n.7 (10th Cir. 1994); Burbage v. Commissioner, 82 T.C.             
          546, 547 n.2 (1984), affd. 774 F.2d 644 (4th Cir. 1985); Wolf v.            
          Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1992-432, affd. 13 F.3d 189 (6th Cir.              
          1993).                                                                      
               Even if petitioner still sought relief from the stipulation            
          of settled issues, he would not prevail because he has not shown            
          that manifest injustice will result if we enforce the stipulation           
          of settled issues or that the settlement was the result of mutual           
          mistake.  We conclude that petitioner is bound by the stipulation           
          of settled issues.                                                          
          B.   Whether We Have Jurisdiction To Decide Whether Petitioner              
               Incurred Losses From Arcanum                                           
               1.   TEFRA Partnership Procedures                                      
               Respondent contends that we lack jurisdiction to decide                
          whether petitioner incurred losses from Arcanum because,                    
          respondent contends, Arcanum is subject to the unified                      





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011