- 39 -
2006, was late and therefore ineffective.
Although the parties appear to have neared a settlement
agreement during the conference on January 6, 2006, the parties’
subsequent actions demonstrate that such an agreement was never
completed. (1) Although Attorney Cardone sent to Mr. Burke the
proposed stipulated decision and the proposed waiver, each
referencing the settlement terms outlined in Attorney Cardone’s
letter to Mr. Burke dated December 20, 2005, the documents were
never signed. (2) The status report filed with this Court by
petitioner in January of 2006 stated that “counsel have
undertaken extensive negotiations to resolve the subject matter
and believe that they have achieved a basis for settlement” but
did not state that the parties had completed the settlement
agreement on January 6, 2006, as petitioner now claims. (3) The
status report filed with this Court by respondent in January of
2006 stated that “the parties have not resolved the outstanding
income tax liabilities but negotiations are on going.” (4)
Neither petitioner nor respondent at any time filed with this
Court a stipulated decision or a related motion for entry of
decision. (5) Although the settlement terms purport to resolve
Barbara Drake’s section 6015 claim, Barbara Drake’s “Motion to
Request the Determination of a Tax Liability” remained pending
before the bankruptcy court until that court issued its opinion
on January 11, 2006, subsequent to the date on which petitioner
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