- 6 -
subject of judicial interpretation as to its meaning, in light of
the language used and the circumstances surrounding its
execution.” See also Brink v. Commissioner, 39 T.C. 602, 606
(1962), affd. 328 F.2d 622 (6th Cir. 1964); Saigh v.
Commissioner, 26 T.C. 171, 177 (1956); Davis v. Commissioner, 46
B.T.A. 663, 671 (1942); Himmelwright v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo.
1988-114. In a tax case, settlement agreements may be reached
through correspondence, in the absence of a formal document.
Manko v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1995-10.
A prerequisite to the formation of an agreement is an
objective manifestation of mutual assent to its essential terms,
also known as a “meeting of the minds”. U.S. Titan, Inc. v.
Guangzhou Zhen Hua Shipping Co., 241 F.3d 135, 146 (2d Cir.
2001); Am. Merch. Marine Ins. Co. v. Letton, 9 F.2d 799, 801 (2d
Cir. 1926); Kronish v. Commissioner, 90 T.C. 684, 693 (1988);
Manko v. Commissioner, supra. The determination of whether there
was a meeting of minds sufficient to constitute a contract is one
of fact. U.S. Titan Inc. v. Guangzhou Zhen Hua Shipping Co.,
supra at 145.
We are asked to decide whether the parties entered into a
contract to settle the case. Based on the evidence, we conclude
that there was not a meeting of the minds, and, therefore, no
basis of settlement was ever reached by the parties. Mr.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011