- 8 -
a child care expense credit, or an education credit. New issues
raised after a stipulation of settlement has been executed which
are not based on lack of consent, mistake, or fraud are not
sufficient grounds to vacate the stipulation of settlement, nor
to vacate an order and decision entered as a result of the
stipulation of settlement. See Brewer v. Commissioner, T.C.
Memo. 2005-10.
Finally, we conclude that respondent properly advised the
Court that petitioner objected to respondent’s motion for entry
of decision as provided in Rule 50(a). Paragraph 15 of
respondent’s motion for entry of decision states: “Counsel for
petitioner objects to the granting of this motion.”
In summary, petitioner has not shown that there was a lack
of formal consent, mistake, fraud, or some similar ground for
vacating the stipulation of settlement, nor has he cited any
ground or precedent that would support his motion to vacate our
order and decision. Consequently, we shall deny petitioner’s
motion to vacate order and decision.
In reaching our holding herein, we have considered all
arguments made, and, to the extent not mentioned above, we
conclude that they are irrelevant or without merit.
An order will be issued
denying petitioner’s motion to
vacate order and decision.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Last modified: May 25, 2011