El Charro TV Rental, Inc., Diana L. Peters, Tax Matters Person - Page 10

                                       - 10 -                                         

          T.C. 656 (1988); Anderson v. Commissioner, 83 T.C. 898 (1984),              
          affd. without published opinion 846 F.2d 76 (10th Cir. 1988);               
          Sennett v. Commissioner, 69 T.C. 694 (1978).  To some extent, the           
          test case process depends upon the parties’ agreement to be bound           
          by the outcome in the test case.                                            
               A settlement stipulation, including a stipulation to be                
          bound, is “in all essential characteristics a mutual contract"              
          that is "entitled to all of the sanctity of any other contract.”            
          Saigh v. Commissioner, 26 T.C. 171, 177 (1956); see Fisher v.               
          Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1994-434; Estate of Satin v.                       
          Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1994-435.  In this regard, general                 
          principles of contract law are applied in construing such                   
          agreements.  Robbins Tire & Rubber Co. v. Commissioner, 52 T.C.             
          420, 435-436 (1969); Fisher v. Commissioner, supra; Estate of               
          Satin v. Commissioner, supra.  Generally, we look within the                
          “four corners” of the agreement to ascertain the intent of the              
          parties.  Rink v. Commissioner, 100 T.C. 319, 325 (1993), affd.             
          47 F.3d 168 (6th Cir. 1995).  Where an agreement is ambiguous,              
          the Court may look to extrinsic evidence to determine the                   
          parties’ intentions.  Woods v. Commissioner, 92 T.C. 776 (1989).            
               As discussed above, the El Charro I opinion of the Tax                 
          Court holds that, under section 168(f)(1), El Charro was not                
          entitled to use the income forecast method for the type of                  
          property in service.  The parties agreed to be bound in this case           

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011