- 53 -
disputed amount, necessarily, is in the nature of interest. We
find that the award is ambiguous with respect to the disputed
item.
4. Extrinsic Evidence
Since we cannot resolve the ambiguity with respect to the
disputed item from the terms of the award (or the arbitration
agreement, from which it springs), we must turn to extrinsic
evidence to determine its meaning. Cf. North W. Life Assurance
Co. v. Commissioner, 107 T.C. 363, 382 (1996) (with respect to
the language of a treaty, “when language is susceptible to
differing interpretations, extrinsic materials bearing on the
parties’ intent should be considered.”); Woods v. Commissioner,
92 T.C. 776, 780 (1989) (similar, with respect to a consent
extending time to assess tax); Church v. Commissioner, 80 T.C.
1104, 1107 (1983) (evidence extrinsic to jury verdict considered
to determine nature of monetary award); Johnston v. Commissioner,
42 T.C. 880, 882 (1964) (history of lump-sum condemnation award
considered to determine allocation of proceeds).
5. Expert Testimony of Charles N. Brower
Petitioner argues that the award is ambiguous with respect
to the disputed item because the tribunal used the disputed item
to disguise its award to Aminoil of compensation for Kuwait’s
premature termination of the concession. Petitioner relies
principally on the expert testimony of Charles N. Brower to prove
Page: Previous 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011