- 8 -
marketability and collectability discounts ($82,218 relating to a
receivable in the amount of $164,436, and $1,743 relating to an
open book receivable in the amount of $3,485). Respondent argues
that the amounts of the receivables, for purposes of valuing the
receivables, were never put in issue. Therefore, respondent
argues that paragraph 4 did not necessarily relate to paragraph
2. Respondent further asserts that her Appeals officer had the
primary responsibility for negotiating the settlement of the
adjustments in the SPA, and it is clear from his notes, that the
settlement in paragraph 4 was not directly related to the
settlement in paragraph 2.4
Notwithstanding respondent’s assertions, we find paragraph 4
to be ambiguous. First, the amount of the concession is more
than respondent’s adjustment in the notice of deficiency.
Second, the language in paragraph 4 which provides that
“petitioners make no concessions” and that “there is no amount
left in dispute” makes the stipulation ambiguous. Moreover, it
seems reasonable to us that the loan amount reflected as a
payable in determining the net asset value of Dune Lakes and as a
receivable to the decedent would be treated consistently by the
4 Respondent asserts that the agent’s notes, dated June
19, 1995, state “propose 50/50 on Dune Lakes Receivables”, which
corresponds to a 50/50 split of the Dune Lakes receivables in
excess of the $82,218.00 already conceded (� ($246,654-$82,218)
or $82,218). This would result in a total concession by
respondent of $164,436.00 ($82,218.00 + $82,218.00). The
purported notes are not part of the record. Furthermore,
petitioner disputes any agreement to a 50-percent concession.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011