- 7 -
settlement had been reached between the parties, and he lodged
the stipulation on behalf of both parties. Based on the parties’
representation that a settlement of all outstanding issues had
been reached, we canceled the trial and set a deadline for the
submission of a signed decision document.
Petitioner did not file a response to respondent’s motion
with this Court. On that ground alone, we could conclude that
petitioner has failed to demonstrate any proper basis to relieve
him of the consequences of the stipulation. However, petitioner
belatedly submitted to respondent a document described as a
“limited opposition”, and that document has been furnished to the
Court by respondent. For the sake of clarity and completeness,
we address it here.
In petitioner’s limited opposition, petitioner argues only
that he believed the stipulation included the section 179
deduction. However, petitioner fails to indicate whether he made
any attempt to verify the relevant calculation or to ascertain
how Great American’s 2002 section 179 deduction was actually
utilized by Great American. At best, petitioner’s response
outlines an oversight, and at worst, petitioner’s response
suggests a decision not to verify timely the correctness of
respondent’s calculation. Under either scenario, petitioner made
a mistake, and it appears that the mistake was unilateral. A
unilateral mistake is an insufficient ground for disregarding a
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: March 27, 2008