- 5 -
Cir. 1989), affg. Norman v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1987-265;
sec. 301.7122-1(d)(1), (3), Proced. & Admin. Regs. Finally,
there was no mutual assent because the auditor misunderstood the
nature of petitioners’ request. See Dorchester Indus. Inc. v.
Commissioner, 108 T.C. 320, 330 (1997) (stating “A prerequisite
to the formation of a contract is an objective manifestation of
mutual assent to its essential terms”) (citing Manko v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1995-10), affd. without published
opinion 208 F.3d 205 (3d Cir. 2000). Accordingly, respondent’s
determination is sustained.
Contentions we have not addressed are irrelevant, moot, or
meritless.
To reflect the foregoing,
Decision will be entered
for respondent.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5
Last modified: May 25, 2011