- 12 - considerable time and effort developing and presenting evidence on the issue of whether Mr. Mathia was bound by the TMP’s execution of the Greenwich settlement. Resetting this case for trial would prejudice petitioners, see Stamm Intl. Corp. v. Commissioner, 90 T.C. 315, 321 (1988), who would be forced to prepare for trial and litigate factual issues resolved in the Stipulation, see Korangy v. Commissioner, supra. Such a substantial change in the procedural setting of this case would burden this Court’s resources and those of the parties. See id. “‘These unnecessary burdens on the system are unreasonable and unfair from the standpoint of everyone involved.’” Id. (quoting Brooks v. Commissioner, 82 T.C. 413, 430 (1984), affd. without published opinion 772 F.2d 910 (9th Cir. 1985)). It is reasonable to assume that respondent had or could have had access to his administrative file before he entered into the disputed stipulations and that respondent had or should have had all of the necessary facts to determine whether petitioners were bound by the Greenwich settlement between the TMP and the Commissioner in the Greenwich litigation before he entered into the disputed stipulations. See Tate & Lyle, Inc. & Subs. v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1996-80, revd. on other grounds 87 F.3d 99 (3d Cir. 1996). Respondent has not alleged any exceptional circumstances in this case justifying respondent’s sudden change in position and explaining why respondent did not conduct aPage: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011