- 8 -
stipulation. Revell v. Commissioner, supra; see also Dorchester
Indus. Inc. v. Commissioner, supra at 330; Stamm Intl. Corp. v.
Commissioner, supra at 320-321.7
Petitioner did not raise any issue regarding Great
American’s 2002 tentative section 179 deduction in his petition,
and he apparently did not raise it during settlement
negotiations. Petitioner asserted that he was entitled to the
benefit of the tentative section 179 deduction only after the
stipulation had already been executed and lodged with this Court
and after respondent had prepared a decision document in
accordance with the stipulation. Petitioner simply waited too
long to raise an issue regarding Great American’s 2002 tentative
section 179 deduction and its effect, if any, on the calculation
of Great American’s 2002 net profit/loss.
Petitioner has failed to demonstrate any proper basis for
relieving him of the stipulation. Petitioner has not shown that
there was any lack of formal consent, fraud, mutual mistake, or
other similar ground for disregarding the stipulation. See
7The stipulation contains a concession by respondent that
petitioner does not address but should. In the stipulation,
respondent concedes in full the “Sch. E Inc/Loss-Partnership/S-
Corp. adjustment of $164,608 for the 2003 year”. The record does
not disclose whether that adjustment involves Great American, but
in all likelihood it does. Great American elected to carry over
its tentative sec. 179 deduction to 2003. Petitioner does not
trace the use of the 2002 sec. 179 deduction by Great American
and does not explain how the deduction was handled on Great
American’s 2003 return.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: March 27, 2008