Jeffrey R. King and Sabrina M. King - Page 13

                                       - 13 -                                         
               Stipulation 10 of the stipulation of facts states that Mrs.            
          King executed a Form 8332 in favor of Mr. Lopez “for taxable year           
          1987 and all years thereafter.”  Despite this stipulation,                  
          respondent claimed for the first time at trial, and subsequently            
          argued on brief, that the Form 8332 is ambiguous because Mrs.               
          King “did not specify particular future years” or write “all”               
          future years.11  The Kings also dispute the stipulation, claiming           
          that Mrs. King did not release her claim to the exemption                   
          deductions because the Form 8332 was signed under duress and she            
          was not aware what the form was until the instant proceeding                
          began.                                                                      
               Rule 91(a)(1) generally requires the parties to stipulate to           
          the fullest extent all matters not privileged which are relevant            
          to the case, regardless of whether such matters involve fact or             
          opinion or the application of the law to fact.  Stipulations are            
          binding on the parties to the stipulation, unless the parties               
          agree otherwise or the Court relieves a party from the binding              
          effect “where justice requires.”  Rule 91(e).  The parties have             


               11The notices of deficiency do not discuss the validity of             
          the Form 8332 executed by Mrs. King.  Additionally, respondent              
          did not raise this issue in either the answer or the trial                  
          memorandum as a ground for denying the dependency exemption                 
          deductions to the Lopezes.  Indeed, in the trial memorandum,                
          respondent indicates that if the special support test can apply             
          to unmarried parents, then Mr. Lopez is entitled to the                     
          dependency exemption deductions unless Mrs. King can establish              
          that she signed the Form 8332 under duress.  Respondent has                 
          consistently taken the position that the form was not signed                
          under duress.                                                               




Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011