- 8 -
underlying tax liability for that year, and respondent’s
determination is sustained. Sec. 6330(c)(2)(B).
Regarding the taxable year 1996, the stipulation of facts
states that the notice of deficiency was “mailed by respondent on
May 13, 1999, and received by petitioner.” At trial, however,
petitioner testified that he had not received the notice of
deficiency for 1996. Respondent’s counsel appeared to
acknowledge petitioner’s position, stating that “it is
respondent’s understanding as well that petitioner disputes his
actual receipt of that notice.”
“Generally, a stipulation of fact is controlling on the
parties, and the Court is bound to enforce it.” Stamos v.
Commissioner, 87 T.C. 1451, 1454-1455 (1986). “We do not lightly
disregard facts to which the parties have stipulated; however,
where such facts are clearly contrary to facts disclosed by the
record, we refuse to be bound by the stipulation.” Jasionowski
v. Commissioner, 66 T.C. 312, 318 (1976); see also Rule 91(e).
Because respondent did not object to petitioner’s testimony and
did not seek to enforce the stipulation, we do not bind
petitioner to the stipulation to the extent it states that the
notice of deficiency was received by petitioner.
The question remains whether petitioner did in fact receive
the notice of deficiency. We note that the taxable years 1996,
1997, and 1998 involve the same issue. Based on our discussion
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011