-18- This Court should not only deny Respondent’s Motion for Summary Judgment, but this Court should also grant the Petitioner summary judgment. There is no genuine issue with regard to the misrepresentations concerning the stipulated settlement in Hudspath v. Commissioner, Docket No. 7901-00. * * * * * * * * * * Under the circumstances, there is only one re- course open to this Court for these material misrepre- sentations. * * * Declare that the stipulated settle- ment in Hudspath v. Commissioner, Docket No. 7901-00 is void and thus, the assessments arising therefrom are unenforceable. Respondent counters that the Court should reject the posi- tion of petitioner in petitioner’s response. We agree. We note initially that the instant case does not involve assessments arising from petitioner’s non-TEFRA case at docket No. 7901-00. Nor does the instant case involve assessments arising from petitioner’s affected items proceeding (petitioner’s TEFRA-related case at docket No. 14741-02). See supra note 6. The instant case involves only assessments for petitioner’s taxable years 1996 and 1997 that are attributable to flowthrough computational adjustments, as defined in section 6231(a)(6), resulting from the respective SCC-FPAA and WIN-FPAA, which FPAAs had been the subject of the partnership-level proceeding (the TEFRA case at docket No. 7982-00) that the Court dismissed for lack of jurisdiction on April 2, 2001. See secs. 6223, 6225(a)(2), 6226(h), 6229, 6230(a)(1), 6231(a)(6); see also Brookes v. Commissioner, 108 T.C. 1, 5 (1997).Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011