- 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 whenPage: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011