- 8 -
Petitioners nevertheless claim that respondent’s counsel
misled them into believing the stipulation they signed was not
final and could be subject to revisions. They have not offered
any credible evidence to support their claim. Nor is there any
evidence to show that respondent committed fraud in having
petitioners sign the stipulation. At most, petitioners’ claim
amounts to a unilateral mistake, which is not a sufficient ground
to vacate a settlement agreement.
The interests of justice also do not justify setting aside
or modifying the stipulation of settled issues. It was executed
during the late afternoon of May 13, 2002, and filed in time to
avert trial. Prior to that, petitioners had moved for a
continuance on four separate occasions, in part because they
represented to the Court that they wanted an opportunity to
engage counsel. Their claim now that they were unfairly denied
an opportunity for attorney consultation prior to signing the
stipulation does not satisfy the more stringent standards to
modify or set aside a settlement stipulation when a trial is
canceled as a result of the stipulation. We note that the
stipulation of settled issues results in no deficiencies,
additions to tax, and penalties for taxable years 1987 through
1991, and for the remaining taxable year of 1986, the deficiency,
additions to tax, and penalty were substantially reduced when
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011