Rhett Rance Smith and Alice Avila Smith - Page 10

                                       - 10 -                                         
          endings, we must decide whether there was a settlement, and if              
          so, what was settled; i.e., the cash contribution issue or the              
          entire case.                                                                
               The general principles involving settlements have been                 
          effectively set out in the case of Dorchester Indus., Inc. v.               
          Commissioner, 108 T.C. 320, 330 (1997) (quoting Manko v.                    
          Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1995-10), affd. without published                  
          opinion 208 F.3d 205 (3d Cir. 2000), as follows:                            
                    “For almost a century, it has been settled that                   
               voluntary settlement of civil controversies is in high                 
               judicial favor.  Williams v. First Natl. Bank, 216 U.S.                
               582, 595 (1910); St. Louis Mining & Milling Co. v.                     
               Montana Mining Co., 171 U.S. 650, 656 (1898).  A valid                 
               settlement, once reached, cannot be repudiated by                      
               either party, and after the parties have entered into a                
               binding settlement agreement, the actual merits of the                 
               settled controversy are without consequence.  This                     
               Court has declined to set aside a settlement duly                      
               executed by the parties and filed with the Court in the                
               absence of fraud or mutual mistake.  Stamm Intl. Corp.                 
               v. Commissioner, 90 T.C. 315 (1988); Spector v.                        
               Commissioner, 42 T.C. 110 (1964).  However, a court                    
               will not force a settlement on parties where no                        
               settlement was intended.  Autera v. Robinson, 419 F.2d                 
               1197 (D.C. Cir. 1969).                                                 
               “A settlement is a contract and, consequently,                         
               general principles of contract law determine whether a                 
               settlement has been reached.  Robbins Tire & Rubber Co.                
               v. Commissioner, 52 T.C. 420, 435-436, supplemented by                 
               53 T.C. 275 (1969).  A prerequisite to the formation of                
               a contract is an objective manifestation of mutual                     
               assent to its essential terms.  Heil v. Commissioner,                  
               T.C. Memo. 1994-417; 17A Am. Jur. 2d, Contracts, secs.                 
               27 and 28 (1991); 1 Williston on Contracts, sec. 3:5                   
               (4th ed. 1990).  Mutual assent generally requires an                   
               offer and an acceptance.  17A Am. Jur. 2d, Contracts,                  
               sec. 41 (1991).  ‘An offer is the manifestation of                     
               willingness to enter into a bargain, so made as to                     
               justify another person in understanding that his assent                





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011