- 7 -
new factual issues that would require additional evidence
including, perhaps, expert testimony. Respondent maintains that
the settlement agreement filed with the Court on July 3, 1995,
incorporates the full terms of the parties' agreement and that
the agreement speaks for itself. Since the deficiency notice,
the petition and other pleadings, and the settlement document are
all silent with respect to the application of section 2032A,
respondent contends, Executrix is not entitled to the benefits of
that section and the regulations thereunder.
Executrix argues that the parties' stipulation of settlement
encompasses only those issues raised in the notice of deficiency,
i.e., the fair market value of the Ranch. Executrix contends
that the settlement agreement covered neither the amount of the
deficiency, nor its computation. Executrix maintains that the
estate's use of section 2032A is a "mechanical computation", and
that Executrix's election of that section's provisions is
necessarily dependent on the fair market value of all of the
decedent's property, as finally determined or agreed to following
an examination of the return. Executrix argues that respondent's
failure to consider the possible impact of Executrix's protective
election during the settlement negotiations does not constitute a
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011