- 7 - There are also other possible issues in this case that are untouched by the stipulations in their present condition: ! Should the Commissioner’s communications with Lovenguth after the enactment of the IRS Restructuring and Reform Act of 1998, Pub. L. 105-206, 112 Stat. 685, have triggered a collection due process notice and hearing? ! Is section 6511(h)--suspending the running of the statute of limitations when an individual “is unable to manage his financial affairs” if even a part of a tax liability remains unpaid--relevant to this case? and, ! Is section 6334(a)(10) implicated if Lovenguth in fact paid these taxes from assets traceable to disability payments? We list these not as issues about which we’ve formed any conclusions, but as issues noticeable to a trained eye that went unnoticed by a petitioner suffering from severe disability yet trying to represent himself. Unless the Court sets aside the stipulations and vacates its order submitting the case for decision under Rule 122, Lovenguth will not be able to present the facts and make the arguments that could prove his case. Discussion The stipulation process is the bedrock of Tax Court practice. Branerton Corp. v. Commissioner, 61 T.C. 691, 692 (1974). Because we are a high-volume court, we use the stipulation process to encourage settlement and streamline trials by requiring parties to “stipulate, to the fullest extent to which complete or qualified agreement can or fairly should be reached, all matters not privileged which are relevant to thePage: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 NextLast modified: November 10, 2007