G. Dastgir and Mary A. Qureshi - Page 10

                                        -10-                                          
          petitioner’s investment in FoodSource), not specific years.  Also,          
          the body of the closing agreement, specifically paragraphs (4),             
          (5), (7), and (8), supports respondent’s transaction position.              
          However, the second introductory clause clearly supports                    
          petitioner’s position; it refers to specific taxable years, namely          
          1979, 1980, 1982, and 1983.                                                 
               Respondent’s agents drafted the closing agreement.  It is a            
          well-established principle of contract law that where an agreement          
          contains an ambiguity, the ambiguity is resolved against the                
          drafter of the agreement.  See Moore v. Chesapeake & O. Ry. Co.,            
          649 F.2d 1004, 1012 (4th Cir. 1981); see also O’Neil v. Retirement          
          Plan For Salaried Employees of RKO General, Inc., 37 F.3d 55, 61            
          (2d Cir. 1994); Milk ‘N’ More, Inc. v. Beavert, 963 F.2d 1342, 1344         
          (10th Cir. 1992); United States v. Coleman, 895 F.2d 501, 505 (8th          
          Cir. 1990); Thanet Corp. v. United States, 219 Ct. Cl. 75, 591 F.2d         
          629, 633 (Ct. Cl. 1979).  This rules applies to the Internal                
          Revenue Service as drafter of a stipulated agreement.  Clapp v.             
          Commissioner, 875 F.2d 1396, 1399 (9th Cir. 1989).                          
               Each tax year is a separate matter.  See Harrah’s Club v.              
          United States, 228 Ct. Cl. 650, 661 F.2d 203, 205 (1981). If the            
          parties had intended 1984 to be included in their closing                   
          agreement, they could have done so. But they did not. Accordingly,          
          we hold that the closing agreement per se does not preclude                 
          petitioners from entitlement to the claimed depreciation deduction,         
          investment tax credit, and loss for 1984.                                   




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

Last modified: May 25, 2011