- 9 -
fair market value of the Ranch was finally determined. Executrix
could have pleaded special use valuation as an alternative
position in this case. For reasons unknown to the Court, she did
not do so.
In short, the settlement agreement shows that the parties
agreed on the “value” of the ranch, and we believe that
respondent was entitled to infer that “value” in this context
meant value for estate tax purposes. We have no doubt that
respondent entered into the stipulation on that assumption,
thereby forgoing the higher “value” asserted in the deficiency
notice. Executrix would have us hold that the “value” ought to
be lower than in the stipulation due to the application of a
special form of valuation that is not mentioned in the pleadings,
in the stipulation, or in the negotiations leading to the
stipulation. We refuse to do so. The parties struck a bargain
in the stipulation, and Executrix must live with the benefits and
burdens of it. Each party bore the responsibility to negotiate a
written settlement that accurately reflected that party’s
position. In agreeing to the written settlement here, Executrix
failed to preserve her claim to special use valuation under
section 2032A.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011