- 8 -
Later in the same conversation, after Mr. Stientjes advised
that he would file a motion to enforce settlement, Mr. Carriger
checked his notes of the February 21 telephone conversation and
contended that he had not told Mr. Stientjes that the case was
settled, but only that “settlement is looking good.” After that
point in the conversation, Mr. Carriger’s supervisor, Attorney
Albert Kerkhove, became active in the conversation. The matter
devolved into a verbal standoff where nothing further was said
that is worthy of consideration. Following these exchanges,
petitioners filed a motion to enforce the purported settlement.
Discussion
Petitioners have moved for entry of decision based on a
purported settlement agreement in this case. The question we
consider is whether petitioners and respondent have an
enforceable agreement that settled either the cash contribution
issue or the entire case, so as to prohibit respondent from
raising the non-cash-contribution issue. Petitioners’ returns
had been audited for earlier tax years, and petitioners had
pending Tax Court cases scheduled for trial in Phoenix involving
non-cash-contribution deductions. The subsequent audit of the
2002 year was being handled in a different office of respondent,
and the examination resulted in a determination that petitioners
were not entitled to cash contribution deductions. The non-cash-
contribution issue was the subject of the cases for earlier
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011