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 8

                                        - 8 -                                         
          payments of principal on the notes must be read to include the              
          intention to make such payments by the transfer of registered               
          shorthorn heifers.  Petitioner further contends that the "cattle"           
          transferred in payment of the notes, as stipulated, were not                
          calves or culled cattle but registered shorthorn heifers.                   
          Petitioner argues that the Bales decision and the agreement do              
          not apply to the type of cattle transferred.                                
               Respondent argues that the terms of the agreement are clear,           
          limiting only the number of cattle subject to depreciation, not             
          the total number of cattle.  Because petitioner has stipulated              
          that all principal and some interest payments on the notes were             
          made by transferring cattle with a zero basis, respondent claims            
          that these cattle would be nondepreciable or fully depreciated              
          and not limited in number by the terms of the agreement.                    
          Respondent argues that the partnerships must recognize ordinary             
          income in the amount of those payments by the terms of the                  
          agreement.                                                                  
               The settlement of tax cases is governed by general                     
          principles of contract law.  A settlement agreement is in essence           
          a contract.  Each party agrees to concede some rights which he or           
          she may assert against his or her adversary as consideration for            
          those secured in the settlement agreement.  Saigh v.                        
          Commissioner, 26 T.C. 171, 177 (1956).  In determining the proper           
          meaning of the terms of the agreement, we look to the language of           
          the agreement and the circumstances surrounding its execution.              




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