Washoe Ranches # 1, Ltd. Washoe Ranches #2, Ltd., Washoe Ranches #3, Ltd., Washoe Ranches #4, Ltd., Washoe Ranches #5, Ltd., Washoe Ranches #6, Ltd., Washoe Ranches #7, Ltd., Walter J. Hoyt III, - Page 7

                                        - 7 -                                         
                                       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.                                                                     
               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 petitioners 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            
          partnerships to make the payments of principal and interest to              
          Hoyt & Sons Ranches by the transfer of cattle.  Petitioner                  
          contends that the provision in the settlement agreement regarding           




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