- 5 -
Carriger stated to Mr. Stientjes that “[w]e have a settlement.”
Petitioners also allege that during a March 2, 2006, telephone
conversation, Mr. Carriger admitted that he had accepted
petitioners’ settlement offer. Petitioners also admit that
before the March 2 conversation, Mr. Carriger advised Mr.
Stientjes, in a telephone message, that respondent intended to
raise a new issue. Petitioners also contend that Mr. Carriger
attempted, during the March 2, conversation, “to retract his
admissions and claimed that he did not unequivocally accept the
settlement offer during the February 21, 2006 teleconference.”
Respondent, on the other hand, contends that, at the time of
the February 21 conversation, Mr. Carriger was “aware that
Appeals Officer Gonzalez had nearly completed her review of the
documentation submitted for the cash contributions and that a
settlement seemed likely.” Respondent also alleges that Mr.
Carriger was “unaware of the January 6, 2006 offer letter and of
the details of what a settlement might be.” With those
premises, respondent contends that Mr. Carriger, during the
February 21 conversations, “reported to * * * [Attorney]
Stientjes that ‘settlement was looking good.’” In essence,
respondent’s position is that Attorney Carriger “had no basis to
reach a meeting of the minds on the matter as he had not reviewed
the documentation submitted.”
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011