- 8 -
land located in Grapevine, Texas. He asserted that she owned
only a one-half interest in the property on the date of her
death, and that the fair market value was $527,250.
Alternatively, Elwood alleged that, in the event the Court
determined that Martha Cluck owned the entire legal interest in
the Grapevine property at the date of her death, the fair market
value thereof did not exceed $1,054,500.
On November 25, 1988, we consolidated the cases of Elwood
and his brothers, and the consolidated case was set for trial.
On February 27, 1989, Elwood and his brothers entered into an
agreement with respondent, styled "Stipulation of Settled
Issues."7 The agreement provided, among other things, that 100
percent of the value of the Grapevine property would be included
in Martha Cluck's gross estate. In addition, the parties agreed
that the fair market value of Martha Cluck's 100-percent interest
in the Grapevine property on the date of her death was
$1,420,000. Separate decisions were entered in the Estate case
as to each of the brothers based on the aforementioned agreement.
7 Petitioner argues that evidence of the agreement between the
Cluck brothers and respondent is inadmissable under Rule 91(e),
because it was a stipulation which was used in another case.
Although styled as a stipulation, the settlement is an agreement
between the parties which was deemed stipulated for purposes of
this case. See supra note 3. Furthermore, the agreement is
relevant and not barred by any evidentiary rule. We therefore
find that the agreement is admissible in this case. AMERCO &
Subs. v. Commissioner, 96 T.C. 18, 43-44 (1991), affd. on other
grounds 979 F.2d 162 (9th Cir. 1992).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011