- 19 -
the provision limiting the number of cattle held subject to
depreciation.
In the alternative, petitioner argues that because
respondent calculated lower interest payable by the partnerships
for the years in issue consistent with the agreement, the
partnerships paid cash to Ranches in excess of the amounts due in
some of the years. This cash, petitioner asserts, should be
applied to any future principal and interest due on the notes
payable to Ranches before the partnerships recognize any ordinary
income on the transfer of cattle in payment.
Respondent argues that the stipulation clearly negates any
claim that the partnerships made payments on the notes with cash
and that petitioner is bound by the stipulation.
The Court will hold the parties bound by a stipulation
unless justice requires otherwise. Rule 91(e). The Court may
modify or set aside a stipulation that is clearly contrary to the
facts revealed on the record. Cal-Maine Foods v. Commissioner,
supra.
Petitioner attached schedules entitled "Partnerships Cash
Reconciliation" to petitioner's posttrial brief for each of the
years 1980 through 1986. This exhibit is not considered to be
evidence. Rule 143(b). Petitioner also argues that the
stipulations entered in two other cases are evidence in support
of his position. Stipulations have effect in the cases in which
Page: Previous 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011