Poison Creek Ranches #1, Ltd., Poison Creek Ranches #2, Ltd., Poison Creek Ranches #3, Ltd., Poison Creek Ranches #4, Ltd., Walter J. Hoyt, III, Tax Matters Partner, et al. - Page 10

                                       - 10 -                                         

               sole and absolute discretion.                                          
                                       OPINION                                        
               At trial, respondent filed a motion for summary judgment in            
          these consolidated cases.  Given the disposition of the issue on            
          the merits as discussed below, we do not find it necessary to               
          address respondent's motion for summary judgment, and it will be            
          denied.                                                                     
          Schedule F Income                                                           
               Under section 6224 a settlement agreement between respondent           
          and a tax matters partner related to the determination of                   
          partnership items for any partnership taxable year is binding on            
          the parties to the agreement with respect to the determination of           
          partnership items for such partnership taxable year unless there            
          is a showing of fraud, malfeasance, or misrepresentation of fact.           
          Sec. 6224(c).  Petitioner and respondent both assert that the               
          agreement is clear and unambiguous, and neither party seeks to              
          have it set aside.  However, the parties do not agree on the                
          proper interpretation and enforcement of the agreement.                     
               Petitioner argues that the settlement memorandum was a                 
          complete integration of the agreement between petitioner and                
          respondent and that respondent is precluded from relying on facts           
          not contained therein.  Petitioner argues that because the                  
          agreement limited the number of cattle subject to depreciation,             
          the agreement failed to provide for the cattle necessary for the            





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011