- 8 - pending case.” Rule 91(a). Put another way, the stipulation process requires the “voluntary exchange of necessary facts, documents, and other data between the parties * * *.” Branerton, 61 T.C. at 692. The process works because the parties are bound by the stipulations. Rule 91(e). And this means that we “will not permit a party to a stipulation to qualify, change, or contradict a stipulation * * * [unless] justice requires.” Id. With “justice” as our standard, we do have broad discretion to determine when it is appropriate to set aside a stipulation. Blohm v. Commissioner, 994 F.2d 1542, 1553 (11th Cir. 1993), affg. T.C. Memo. 1991-636; Estate of Eddy v. Commissioner, 115 T.C. 135, 137 n.4 (2000). However, our discretion is tempered by the importance of making stipulations stick--we enforce stipulations unless not just “injustice,” but “manifest injustice” would result. See Bokum v. Commissioner, 992 F.2d 1132, 1135-36 (11th Cir. 1993), affg. 94 T.C. 126 (1990). The Commissioner cites Saigh v. Commissioner, 26 T.C. 171, 177 (1956); Bakare v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1994-72, and similar cases as additional constraints on our discretion. In Saigh, 26 T.C. at 177, we restated the general rule that a “stipulation is in all essential characteristics a mutual contract by which each party grants to the other a concession of some rights as a consideration for those secured and the settlement stipulation is entitled to all of the sanctity of anyPage: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 NextLast modified: November 10, 2007