Robert T. Brewer - Page 5

                                        - 5 -                                         
          settlement agreements where, shortly before trial, the parties              
          agreed to a settlement and caused the vacation of the trial date.           
          In such cases, we have held the settlements to be enforceable               
          unless the moving party can show a lack of formal consent,                  
          mistake, fraud, or some similar ground.  See Dorchester Indus.,             
          Inc. v. Commissioner, 108 T.C. 320, 335 (1997), affd. 208 F.3d              
          205 (3d Cir. 2000); Stamm Intl. Corp. v. Commissioner, 90 T.C.              
          315, 321-322 (1988).  We believe that petitioner should be held             
          to this more stringent standard, rather than that stated in rule            
          60 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for vacation of                  
          decisions.  Here, the parties reached a settlement shortly before           
          trial, and the trial date was vacated as a result of that                   
          settlement.  Our subsequent entering of the decision should not             
          lessen the standard to which petitioner, as the moving party,               
          must be held.                                                               
               Petitioner argues that the decision should be vacated for              
          various reasons.  First, petitioner objects to the decision                 
          because it does not show that his net tax due is $1,100.  The               
          $1,100 appears to reflect the difference between petitioner’s               
          deficiency for 1999 ($4,878), and the amount of petitioner’s                
          withholding credits for 1999 ($3,778), both of which are shown in           
          the decision.  Respondent agrees that petitioner’s net tax due              
          for 1999 is $1,100, excluding interest.  Because petitioner and             

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011