- 5 -
Additionally, the estate has not shown that we made a
manifest error of law. The estate argues that our reliance on
Gardner v. Commissioner, 75 T.C. 475 (1980), for the proposition
that the settlement was not signed by an IRS official authorized
to approve it was improper because Gardner was overruled by
Dorchester Indus., Inc. v. Commissioner, 108 T.C. 320 (1997),
affd. 208 F.3d 205 (3d Cir. 2000), and Stamm Intl. Corp. v.
Commissioner, 90 T.C. 315 (1988). The estate is wrong.
Neither Dorchester nor Stamm dealt with the authority of an
Appeals officer to enter into a settlement agreement.
Furthermore, our citation to the rule of Gardner was merely an
alternative ground for holding against the estate. It does not
change the fact that there was no meeting of the minds and that
the estate cannot claim to have accepted what respondent did not
offer.2
The estate’s legal arguments are merely the rehashing of
previously rejected legal arguments or the tendering of new legal
theories to reach the end result desired by the estate. This is
inappropriate. See Estate of Quick v. Commissioner, supra;
Stoody v. Commissioner, supra.
2 Additionally, if a document contains an incorrect figure
due to a clerical error (such as writing down the wrong number)
and fails to reflect accurately the terms of an agreement, we
shall not enforce the document as written and shall allow a party
to correct the error. See Holland v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo.
1992-691.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011