- 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