- 5 -
On or about March 15, 2007, petitioner mailed to respondent
a document titled “Limited Opposition to Motion To Confirm
Decision; Declaration of Jackson Behar in Support Thereof”
(opposition), but he did not file the opposition with this
Court.5 On March 27, 2007, respondent filed a supplement to his
motion for entry of decision and included petitioner’s limited
opposition as an exhibit. In his limited opposition, petitioner
objects to respondent’s failure to include Great American’s
tentative section 179 expense deduction in calculating Great
American’s 2002 profit/loss and asserts that respondent’s failure
adversely affects the calculation of petitioner’s income tax
deficiency for 2002. However, petitioner does not dispute that
he entered into the stipulation or that the stipulation reflects
the settlement reached by the parties.
Neither party has requested an evidentiary hearing in this
matter, and we conclude that a hearing is not necessary to decide
respondent’s motion.
Discussion
A controversy before this Court may be settled by agreement
of the parties. Dorchester Indus. Inc. v. Commissioner, 108 T.C.
320, 329 (1997), affd. without published opinion 208 F.3d 205 (3d
5The limited opposition was submitted on behalf of both
Michael L. Medkiff, another partner in Great American, and
petitioner but only lists the docket number of Mr. Medkiff’s
case.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: March 27, 2008