- 9 -
trial date because of any settlement between the parties (i.e.,
the Court granted a continuance in this case because the estate’s
expert was ill); and (3) Mr. Lindenbaum contacted Mr. Sherland
with regard to the error the next day.
We do not believe that the estate should reap an undue
advantage from the error. See Sergy v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo.
1990-442. We believe that an injustice would occur if we were to
require respondent to adhere to the $1 million value reflected in
the January 14, 2002, fax. We find that there was no meeting of
the minds between the parties, and we shall deny the estate’s
motion for entry of decision.2
In reaching our holding herein, we have considered all
arguments made, and, to the extent not mentioned above, we
conclude them to be moot, irrelevant, or without merit.
To reflect the foregoing,
An appropriate order
will be issued.
2 Even if we held there was a meeting of minds, we would
deny the estate’s motion because the “settlement” was never
signed or approved by, or even submitted to, any IRS official
authorized to approve it. Gardner v. Commissioner, 75 T.C. 475,
479 (1980).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Last modified: May 25, 2011