- 25 -
interpretation of the agreement supports his contention that the
partnership items should be allocated to a limited number of
partners.
First, petitioner asserts, on brief, that the tax matters
partner believed that pursuant to the Code provisions, partners
who settled on an individual basis should be excluded from
allocations to be determined under the agreement because such
partners are no longer parties to this action.
Respondent argues that even assuming that the tax matters
partner believed the calculations under the agreement would be
made by applying its provisions only to the partners who are
parties to this action, such belief is a mistake of law, and thus
it does not preclude enforcement of the agreement.
Assertions made in briefs do not constitute evidence. Rule
143(b). There is no evidence on the record to support
petitioner's assertion as to the belief of the tax matters
partner at the time the agreement was made. Further, we agree
with respondent that the tax matters partner's asserted belief is
mistaken, and, whether the mistake is of fact or law, it is not
grounds for rescinding an agreement under section 6224. Korff v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1993-33. Therefore, the agreement is
enforceable.
In the alternative, petitioner argues that by its terms the
agreement does not apply to partners who have settled with the
Page: Previous 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011