- 68 -
authority to enforce our own Rules to provide a just result.
Rule 1(b); Goldsmith v. Bd. of Tax Appeals, 270 U.S. 117 (1926).
This includes the authority to enforce agreements reached under
our Rules. Willamette Indus., Inc. v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo.
1995-150. Implicit in the authority to enforce agreements
reached under Rule 155(a) is the understanding that we enter
decisions in conformity with the agreed computation. If the
Court’s interpretation of the decision was not in conformity with
the parties’ agreement and the Court’s Opinion, we had no basis
to enter the decision, and it should be vacated. The alternative
is to enforce the parties’ agreed interpretation of the term
“overpayment”.
I believe we have exceeded our statutory authority today,
but perhaps the most unfortunate aspect of today’s opinion is
that Rule 155(a) now becomes a trap for the parties before our
Court. In this case, the Court did not review the agreed Rule
155 computations submitted by the parties before executing the
decision document. The adopted opinion determines that the Court
is prevented from considering the agreed computations after a
decision is entered, so the computation is ignored before and
after the decision is executed. This effectively renders Rule
155(a) a nullity. The agreed computation becomes irrelevant to
the outcome regarding the meaning and effect of the decision
Page: Previous 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011