Ellen M. Rangos - Page 15

                                       - 15 -                                         

          conclusion that the parties did not intend for petitioner to                
          include the automobile payments as income.                                  
               Ambiguous language in a contract is to be resolved against the         
          drafter of the agreement.  Rink v. Commissioner, 100 T.C. 319, 328          
          n.8 (1993), affd. 47 F.3d 168 (6th Cir. 1995); see, e.g., United            
          States v. Seckinger, 397 U.S. 203, 216 (1970).  Accordingly, we             
          construe any ambiguity of Paragraph 12 against Mr. Rangos.                  
               Considering all the facts and circumstances, we hold that the          
          amounts paid by Mr. Rangos for the purpose of furnishing petitioner         
          with an automobile in 1991 and 1994 are in the nature of a property         
          settlement, and therefore not includable in her income for those            
          years.                                                                      
               To reflect the foregoing and respondent's concessions,                 


                                                  Decisions will be entered           
                                             for petitioner.                          


















Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  

Last modified: May 25, 2011