- 37 -
letter to Mr. Burke dated December 20, 2006; that Mr. Burke
orally accepted respondent’s offer on behalf of petitioner and
petitioner’s family during Mr. Burke’s telephone conference with
Attorney Cardone on January 6, 2006; and that Attorney Cardone
demonstrated that the parties had completed the global settlement
agreement by sending to Mr. Burke the proposed stipulated
decision, the proposed waiver, and the memoranda from Darren
Drake and Gregory Drake, Jr.20 Consequently, petitioner contends
that respondent’s Appeals officer erred in determining that the
parties did not enter into a settlement agreement.21
Parties to a controversy before this Court may settle the
matter by agreement. Dorchester Indus. v. Commissioner, 108 T.C.
320, 329 (1997), affd. without published opinion 208 F.3d 205 (3d
Cir. 2000). The parties may not repudiate a valid settlement.
Id. at 330. In the absence of fraud or mistake, we have declined
to set aside a settlement that was duly executed by the parties
and filed with the Court. Id. We do not, however, enforce a
20The aforementioned contentions are primarily set forth in
petitioner’s “Motion to Compel Settlement”, which, for reasons
set forth in this opinion, we deny.
21With respect to the global settlement, an attachment to
the supplemental notice of determination states as follows:
“Your representative and IRS Area Counsel attempted to reach
settlement terms for this and other related cases. That attempt
was unsuccessful.” Separately, the attachment stated: “In a
telephone conversation on February 13, 2006, the Settlement
Officer informed your representative that she did not agree that
the case now included Mrs. Drake and that she would no longer
hold the CDP case in abeyance in hopes of an outside settlement.”
Page: Previous 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011