- 8 -
claims the stipulation is erroneous, see Rule 91(e); Logsdon v.
Commissioner, supra.
Respondent argues that the disputed stipulations contain
erroneous legal conclusions and requests that we remove them.
Although we are not bound by stipulations of law, see Bokum v.
Commissioner, 94 T.C. at 143, respondent’s argument fails to
acknowledge that stipulations of law may bind the parties to the
stipulation as a matter of contract law, see Stamos v.
Commissioner, supra at 1455. In Estate of Quirk v. Commissioner,
supra at 759, the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
explained that the stipulation process allows the parties to
concede both factual and legal issues that they might otherwise
have litigated, noting that “In fact, narrowing disputes to the
essential disputed issues is the primary function of
stipulations.” A court is not required to relieve a party from
erroneous stipulations of law, particularly when the stipulation
is part of a negotiated settlement. See, e.g., Stanley v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1991-20.
We also disagree with respondent’s characterization of the
disputed stipulations as containing stipulations of law. At
most, the stipulations in question contain mixed statements of
fact and law. As petitioners point out in their response
opposing respondent’s motion,
even if the Court determines that stipulations 22 and
34 do “include legal conclusions” as asserted by
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011