- 14 -
record. Petitioners also contend that these amounts of
additional depreciation are properly allowable under the law.
Respondent contends that the basis of settlement stated for
the record was complete. Respondent also contends that the
amounts of additional depreciation claimed by Comet are not
correct and that respondent did not agree to those amounts.
We are not convinced that mutual mistake is present in these
cases because both parties said that the basis of settlement
represented the full settlement agreement. The basis of
settlement used the amount of gross income for Comet as
determined by respondent as a starting point. If respondent had
agreed to make any additional concessions, petitioners' counsel
should have identified them to the Court when the settlement was
presented. See Stamm Intl. Corp. v. Commissioner, supra; Korangy
v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1989-2, affd. 893 F.2d 69 (4th Cir.
1990). The parties are bound by the basis of settlement as
stated on the record and may not rely on extrinsic evidence to
prove that they had agreed to something else. Woods v.
Commissioner, 92 T.C. 776, 780-781 (1989); Constitution Publg.
Co. v. Commissioner, 22 B.T.A. 426, 427-428 (1931).
We conclude that Comet is not entitled to deduct more for
depreciation than respondent allowed.
For the foregoing reasons,
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011