Michael L. Medkiff - Page 8




                                        - 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