- 14 -
not otherwise agreed to be relieved from the binding effect of
stipulation 10. Additionally, as explained below, justice does
not require us to disregard the stipulation.
Stipulation 10 states that the release contained in the Form
8332 was not just for 1987; it was for each and every year after
1987. The Form 8332 itself clearly demonstrates that Mrs. King
intended to release her claim to exemptions for 1987 and all
subsequent years, and we reject respondent’s new argument that
the omission of the word “all” renders the release ineffective.12
The Kings are also bound by the stipulation. However, we
briefly discuss why their arguments are not grounds for finding
that the Form 8332 was invalid with respect to the years in
issue. Mrs. King’s overall testimony at trial indicates that she
was not under duress at the time she signed the Form 8332. Mrs.
King testified that Mr. Lopez did not threaten her on the day she
executed the Form 8332 or otherwise force her to sign the
document. Mrs. King’s allegations of abuse involve isolated
incidents not contemporaneous with her signing of the Form 8332
and do not support a finding under either Federal or State law
that there was an unlawful threat or pattern of abuse or mental
12In any event, we find respondent’s argument that the Form
8332 is ineffective because it lacks the word “all” strained and
unpersuasive. The words “future years” written on the form
clearly indicate that the claim for the exemption deduction was
intended to be released not just for 1987 but for each and every
year thereafter.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011