- 6 -
revise a decision rests within the Court’s discretion. Vaughn v.
Commissioner, 87 T.C. 164, 166-167 (1986).
The Court has applied a stringent standard in evaluating
motions to vacate settlement agreements where, shortly before
trial, the parties have agreed to a settlement and caused the
trial date to be vacated. 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). Moreover, a
settlement is generally binding irrespective of whether it is
correct on the merits. See, e.g., Lamanna v. Commissioner, T.C.
Memo. 2003-110, affd. in part, vacated and remanded in part 107
Fed. Appx. 723 (9th Cir. 2004).
We believe that petitioner should be held to this stringent
standard. Here the parties reached a settlement shortly before
trial, and the trial date was vacated as a result of that
settlement.
Petitioner argues that Rule 155 applies to this case and
therefore alleges that the Court should not have entered its
decision because the Clerk of the Court did not serve petitioner
with a notice of the filing of respondent’s motion for entry of
decision. Petitioner alleges that respondent was aware that
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011