- 44 -
Rule 91(e) provides, in pertinent part, as follows:
(e) Binding Effect: 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. * * *
Respondent has not asked to be relieved from this
stipulation, and nothing that has been brought to the Court’s
attention leads us to conclude that justice requires us, sua
sponte, to relieve respondent from this stipulation. Compare the
instant cases with, e.g., BankAmerica Corp. v. Commissioner, 109
T.C. 1, 12 (1997) (where we concluded that, in the interest of
justice, the taxpayer should be relieved from the effects of a
stipulation, but only for a specified “narrow purpose”); Stamos
v. Commissioner, 87 T.C. 1451, 1454-1456 (1986) (where we
“concluded that the language in question from the stipulation
filed herein is so ambiguous and indefinite that it does not
constitute a stipulation at all”, and thereupon denied a motion
for partial summary judgment).
Respondent explains the stipulation as follows:
The stipulations listed by Petitioners do not preclude
evidence that part of the games were manufactured elsewhere,
e.g., the Dominican Republic, since they refer only to what
has taken place in Puerto Rico and do not address activities
outside Puerto Rico.
The effect of this explanation is to treat Stipulation 27 as
though it read as follows:
Page: Previous 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011