- 34 -
$2,099,970,000. The rule in Danielson v. Commissioner, supra at
775, vacating and remanding 44 T.C. 549 (1965), is that, although
the Commissioner is not bound by allocations or characterizations
stated in a contract, a taxpayer can disavow the terms of an
agreement, in order to challenge the tax consequences flowing
therefrom, only by adducing proof showing mistake, undue
influence, fraud, duress, or other ground that in an action
between the parties to the agreement would be admissible to set
aside that agreement or alter its construction. We have not
adopted the Danielson rule. Coleman v. Commissioner, 87 T.C.
178, 202 and n.17 (1986), affd. without published opinion 833
F.2d 303 (3d Cir. 1987). We generally apply the less stringent
"strong proof" rule. Id. at 202. That rule requires the
taxpayer, in disavowing the terms of a written instrument in
order to challenge the tax consequences flowing therefrom, to
present "strong proof", i.e., more than a preponderance of the
evidence, that the terms of the written instrument do not reflect
the actual intentions of the contracting parties. Estate of
Durkin v. Commissioner, 99 T.C. 561, 572-573 (1992) (Court
reviewed); Elrod v. Commissioner, 87 T.C. 1046, 1066 (1986); G C
Servs. Corp. v. Commissioner, 73 T.C. 406, 412 (1979); Stephens
v. Commissioner, 60 T.C. 1004, 1012 (1973), affd. without
published opinion 506 F.2d 1400 (6th Cir. 1974). Nonetheless,
Page: Previous 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011