- 22 -
B. Enforcement of the Stipulation of Settled Issues
Having determined that petitioners’ counsel was authorized
to sign the stipulation of settled issues, we must now determine
whether to enforce it, or whether petitioners have presented
facts that would warrant excusing them from the settlement they
reached on the eve of trial. We find that they have not.
While we have discretion to set aside a filed settlement
stipulation, that discretion will only be exercised for good
cause. Dorchester Indus., Inc. v. Commissioner, 108 T.C. 320,
334 (1997). Generally, the party seeking to avoid the agreement
must show that failure to exercise the discretion would prejudice
him, no substantial injury will be occasioned to the opposing
party, refusal to exercise discretion might result in injustice,
and the inconvenience to the court is slight. Id. at 334-335;
Adams v. Commissioner, 85 T.C. at 375; see also Rule 91(e).
Where the court cancels a trial in reliance on a stipulation, the
standard is even higher, and the moving party must “satisfy
standards akin to those applicable in vacating a judgment entered
into by consent”. Dorchester Indus., Inc. v. Commissioner, supra
at 335; Stamm Intl. Corp. v. Commissioner, 90 T.C. 315 (1988);
Himmelwright v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1988-114.
Mrs. Wolfe filed the petition on behalf of WFO as its
president. Her capacity to act on WFO’s behalf when she filed
the petition, and her continuing possession of such capacity when
Page: Previous 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011