- 12 -
this Court in determining the knowledge and intent of decedent in
granting the powers of attorney.
When we are required to make a State law determination as to
the existence and extent of legal rights and interests created by
a written instrument in order to decide a case over which we have
jurisdiction, “we must look to that State’s parol evidence rule
in deciding whether or not to exclude extrinsic evidence that
bears on the disputed rights and interests under the
instrument.”9 Estate of Craft v. Commissioner, 68 T.C. 249, 263
(1977), affd. per curiam 608 F.2d 240 (5th Cir. 1979); see also
Stevenson v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1986-207 (applying Oregon
law); Young v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1985-221. Since this
case requires us to decide whether the power to make gifts was
granted to Ms. Thompson by the powers of attorney given to her by
decedent, we must examine the applicable State parol evidence
rule and decide whether it requires us to exclude the disputed
testimony. The parties agree that Oregon State law applies.
Oregon’s parol evidence rule, codified in Or. Rev. Stat.
sec. 41.740 (1999), provides:
When the terms of an agreement have been reduced
to writing by the parties, it is to be considered as
containing all those terms, and therefore there can be,
between the parties and their representatives or
9“The so-called parol evidence rule is a misnomer; the rule
is one of substantive law and not one of evidence.” Estate of
Craft v. Commissioner, 68 T.C. 249, 262-263 (1977), affd. per
curiam 608 F.2d 240 (5th Cir. 1979).
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011