- 18 -
had charged the wrong person with certain illegal income.)
Accordingly, the merits of the estate’s position (whether or
not it was advanced prior to the settlement) are not a
dispositive consideration in attempting to decide whether we
should grant the estate’s motions to vacate the decisions that
have been entered in accord with the parties’ agreement.
Generally, this Court has not set aside a decision entered
by the parties’ consent “Absent a showing of lack of formal
consent, fraud, mistake, or some similar ground”. Dorchester
Indus. Inc. v. Commissioner, 108 T.C. 320, 335 (1977).
Assuming arguendo that there was a conflict of interest
connected with Mr. Harkavy’s representation of the estate, in
order to vacate the parties’ agreed decisions we would also have
to find that the estate was not properly represented. We have
carefully considered the testimony of Mr. Harkavy, Mr.
Klinghoffer, Mrs. Peterson, and the other individuals involved,
and there is no credible evidence that Mr. Harkavy failed to
properly represent the estate. In addition, there is no evidence
that Mr. Harkavy’s employment by IRS was related to or had any
effect upon his representation of the estate or that it deterred
him from making any of the arguments that the estate wishes to
raise for the first time now. This case is distinguishable from
Wilson v. Commissioner, supra, where the Court of Appeals for the
Second Circuit found it probable that independent counsel would
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011