- 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