- 12 -
clear. Under Arizona's parol evidence rule, courts first
consider parol or extrinsic evidence a party offers, and, if the
written agreement is ambiguous and reasonably susceptible to the
interpretation asserted by that party, the parol or extrinsic
evidence is admissible to establish the intent of the parties.
See Taylor v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 854 P.2d 1134, 1140
(Ariz. 1993). The written agreement is inconsistent with
petitioners' position that the $175,000 was paid, in part, for
Jasiak's promise not to compete. It is not ambiguous or
susceptible to petitioners' interpretation. Thus, we do not
consider petitioner's testimony to establish the intent of the
parties. See Taylor v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., supra.
We conclude that Cost Less may not amortize any amount for
Jasiak's oral promise not to compete because the parties did not
allocate or intend to allocate any amount to it. Patterson v.
Commissioner, supra; Better Beverages, Inc. v. United States,
supra; Annabelle Candy Co. v. Commissioner, supra; Peterson Mach.
Tool, Inc. v. Commissioner, 79 T.C. 72, 81 (1982), affd. 54 AFTR
2d 84-5407, 84-2 USTC par. 9885 (10th Cir. 1984); Major v.
Commissioner, 76 T.C. 239, 247 (1981); Lucas v. Commissioner, 58
T.C. 1022, 1032 (1972).
b. Whether There Is Evidence of the Value of Jasiak's
Promise Not To Compete
Petitioners contend that Jasiak's oral promise not to
compete was valuable. Petitioners contend that the fact that
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011