See http://www.ustaxcourt.gov/InOpHistoric/ ... CM.WPD.pdf for the full decisionLovenguth, who was acting pro se, was apparently unclear about his relationship with Commissioner’s counsel. A comment made during a conference call led him to believe that the IRS counsel was there to help, rather than represent the Commissioner. He was also led to believe that he had to sign the stipulation of facts immediately or he would not be able to do so later. It was only when Commissioner’s counsel informed Lovenguth in a later telephone conversation that he would “eat [him] up in court” that Lovenguth realized he was mistaken.
http://tax.cchgroup.com/news/headlines/2007/nws32807.htm#1 wrote:The circumstances of the taxpayer's case required the court to grant relief from stipulations under Tax Court Rule 91(e) in the interest of justice. The taxpayer was not represented by counsel when the stipulations were being drafted; the stipulations were prepared by the government's counsel without negotiation or bargaining. Additionally, he had no legal training and suffered from a weakened mental and physical condition. The government's argument that the taxpayer would not be prejudiced by the agreed-upon stipulations was rejected. Finally, the taxpayer did not understand the stipulation process; he believed that the government's counsel was there to assist him, rather than to represent the IRS.
