- -13
802 F.2d 365, 368 (9th Cir. 1986), affg. on this issue T.C. Memo.
1984-264.
Respondent's position in this case is that under the lease
between Nikki's and petitioner, the purchase of tires was an
expense of Nikki's and, therefore, the tire purchase expense was
properly deductible by Nikki's and not by petitioner. In order
to show that the lease was not an accurate statement of the
agreement between the parties, petitioner introduced the
testimony of Kurt Caillier, which respondent objects to under the
parol evidence rule. Under the terms of the lease, the
obligation of paying for the tire expenses was Nikki's.
Petitioner argues that Kurt Caillier's testimony should be
admitted to prove that the terms of the lease were contrary to
the intent of the parties. Respondent contends that any parol
evidence pertaining to the tire expense provision in the lease
should be excluded.
As a preliminary matter, respondent contends that we should
apply the "Danielson rule", Commissioner v. Danielson, 378 F.2d
771 (3d Cir. 1967), vacating 44 T.C. 549 (1965), to determine the
rights of the parties in this case.2 This Court has consistently
2 In Commissioner v. Danielson, 378 F.2d 771, 775 (3d Cir.
1967), vacating 44 T.C. 549 (1965), the court stated:
a party can challenge the tax consequences of his agreement
as construed by the Commissioner only by adducing proof
which in an action between the parties to the agreement
would be admissible to alter that construction or to show
(continued...)
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