- 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 the
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 10, 2007