- 7 -
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 Great American’s
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
an otherwise binding stipulation of settlement. Revell v.
Commissioner, supra; see also Dorchester Indus. Inc.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: March 27, 2008