- 8 -
be binding in the pending case. Further, the Rule provides that
the Court will not permit a party to “qualify, change, or
contradict a stipulation” except that the Court may do so “where
justice requires.” Rule 91(e). For each of the years in issue,
petitioner conceded the amounts of unreported income in the
stipulations of facts. Petitioner did not move to be relieved
from the stipulations or present grounds that he should not be
bound to his admission. See Rule 91(e); Said v. Commissioner,
T.C. Memo. 2003-148. We conclude that the stipulations are
binding.
Further, petitioner’s argument that the person who sent the
notices of deficiency did not have the delegated authority to
send them has been deemed by this Court to be frivolous.
Petitioner bases his argument on the Court’s decision in Everman
v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2003-137. Petitioner misreads the
holding in Everman. In Everman, as in countless other cases, the
Court held that the taxpayer’s argument that the notice of
deficiency was invalid because it was not signed by the Secretary
or an authorized delegate was meritless. Id.; see, e.g., Nestor
v. Commissioner, 118 T.C. 162, 165 (2002); Bethea v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2003-278; Fink v. Commissioner, T.C.
Memo. 2003-61; Koenig v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2003-40; Snyder
v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2001-255; Browder v. Commissioner,
T.C. Memo. 1990-408. Further, the Court noted that there is no
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011