- 15 -
We are not persuaded by this argument. Even if the cattle
transferred were depreciable registered shorthorn heifers,
petitioner has stipulated that the cattle had zero basis, and as
explained above, we will not set aside this stipulation.
Therefore, the cattle would be fully depreciated and outside of
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, in some of
the years they paid cash to Hoyt & Sons Ranches in excess of the
amounts due. This cash, petitioner asserts, should be applied to
any future principal and interest due on the notes payable to
Hoyt & Sons 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 they are 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 which 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
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