-3-
supra; Stamm Intl. Corp. v. Commissioner, 90 T.C. 315, 320-321
(1988).
Petitioners claim that the Court should disregard the
settlement stipulation signed by them because the decision
flowing from the stipulation does not reflect their understanding
of the settlement. We disagree that we should disregard the
settlement stipulation for the reason that petitioners state.
Even if petitioners had mistakenly signed the document, such a
unilateral mistake is not a sufficient ground to set aside an
otherwise enforceable settlement stipulation. Such is especially
so given that petitioners are represented by counsel and that
their signing of the settlement stipulation was on the eve of
their trial. See Stamm Intl. Corp. v. Commissioner, supra at
321-322.
We hold that petitioners are bound by the amounts shown in
the settlement stipulation and the decision that flows therefrom.
We have considered all arguments made by petitioners for a
contrary holding and consider those arguments not discussed
herein to be without merit. To reflect the foregoing,
An appropriate order and
decision will be entered.
Page: Previous 1 2 3
Last modified: May 25, 2011