- -14
held that we do not follow the Danielson rule unless required to
do so by Golsen v. Commissioner, 54 T.C. 742, 756-757 (1970),
affd. 445 F.2d 985 (10th Cir. 1971), and has instead adopted a
"strong proof rule". Anderson v. Commissioner, 92 T.C. 138, 171
(1989); Elrod v. Commissioner, 87 T.C. 1046, 1065-1066 (1986);
G.C. Servs. Corp. v. Commissioner, 73 T.C. 406, 412 (1979).
Since the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, the Circuit to
which this case is appealable, has not explicitly adopted the
Danielson rule, see Schmitz v. Commissioner, 51 T.C. 306, 315-316
(1968), affd. sub nom. Throndson v. Commissioner, 457 F.2d 1022,
1025 (9th Cir. 1972), we will apply the "strong proof rule" which
we have adopted. Under this rule, parol evidence is admissible
on the issue of whether a clear provision of an agreement was put
in the agreement by mistake.
The parties point out that in Estate of Craft v.
Commissioner, 68 T.C. 249, 263 (1977), affd. 608 F.2d 240 (5th
Cir. 1979), we stated:
where we are called upon to make a State law
determination as to the existence and extent of legal
rights and interests created by a written instrument,
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.
2(...continued)
its unenforceability because of mistake, undue influence,
fraud, duress, etc. * * *
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