- 14 -
Commissioner, 76 T.C. 209, 214-217 (1981), affd. 810 F.2d 209
(D.C. Cir. 1987).
2. Postpetition Settlements
Once a case becomes docketed in this Court, a different
framework of rules is typically applied. Specifically, “‘it “is
not necessary that the parties execute a closing agreement under
section 7121 in order to settle a case pending before this Court,
but, rather, a settlement agreement may be reached through offer
and acceptance made by letter, or even in the absence of a
writing.”’” Dorchester Indus. Inc. v. Commissioner, 108 T.C.
320, 330 (1997) (quoting Manko v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1995-
10) (quoting Lamborn v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1994-515)),
affd. without published opinion 208 F.3d 205 (3d Cir. 2000).
In this connection, a settlement is a contract, and general
principles of contract law govern whether a settlement has been
reached. Id.; Robbins Tire & Rubber Co. v. Commissioner, 52 T.C.
420, 435-436 (1969), supplemented by 53 T.C. 275 (1969). To wit,
a prerequisite to the formation of a contract is mutual assent to
its essential terms, arrived at through offer and acceptance.
Dorchester Indus. Inc. v. Commissioner, supra at 330.
3. Interpretation and Invalidation of Settlements
Under either the prepetition or the postpetition rubric,
interpretation, or invalidation, of the settlement thereby
reached will again rest largely on contract law. Dutton v.
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011