- 17 -
Petitioner argues that "There is no doubt here about the
legal enforceability of Exxon's contractual claims for
reimbursement of the overpayment of its oil royalties under the
provisions of the leases during the price regulation under Texas
law." Petitioner's argument represents a dramatic shift from the
position taken by the Allen parties in the Jarvis Christian
litigation. In count II of its complaint in that litigation,
Exxon alleged that the HFU interest owners had breached their
contractual obligations to Exxon by refusing to restore the
amounts of their overcharges. However, the Allen parties denied
any contractual breach on the part of the interest owners and
contended that Exxon was not entitled to any recovery from them.
The Allen parties also adopted the January 16, 1990, motion for
summary judgment and accompanying memorandum filed by the
defendants in the Jarvis Christian litigation, which stated that
"Exxon mocks the fundamental equitable principles underlying this
proceeding by even asking for restitution" of the HFU
overcharges.
When claims under a contract are contested, as were Exxon's
in the instant case, the claims are not enforceable within the
meaning of section 20.2053-4, Estate Tax Regs., until it is
eventually determined whether and to what extent the claims have
ripened into enforceable claims deductible pursuant to section
2053(a)(3). See Estate of Van Horne v. Commissioner, 78 T.C. at
734; Estate of Taylor v. Commissioner, 39 T.C. at 374-375. On
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011