- 18 -
Commissioner v. Danielson, supra. See Norwest Corp.
v. Commissioner, 111 T.C. 105, 142 (1998); Coleman v.
Commissioner, 87 T.C. 178, 202 n.17 (1986), affd. without
published opinion 833 F.2d 303 (3d Cir. 1987); Elrod v.
Commissioner, 87 T.C. 1046, 1065 (1986); G.C. Servs. Corp.
v. Commissioner, 73 T.C. 406, 412 n.2 (1979).
On brief, respondent's counsel expanded the basis
for his objection to include two additional theories:
The "strong proof" rule and the holding of Grummer v.
Commissioner, 46 T.C. 674 (1966). Under the "strong proof"
rule, adopted by this Court, a taxpayer can ignore the
unambiguous terms of a binding agreement only if the
taxpayer presents "strong proof," that is, more than a
preponderance of the evidence, "that the terms of the
written instrument" do "not reflect the actual intention of
the parties thereto." G.C. Servs. Corp. v. Commissioner,
73 T.C. at 412; Meredith Corp. & Subs. v. Commissioner,
102 T.C. 406, 440 (1994); Major v. Commissioner, 76 T.C.
239, 247 (1981). Similarly, the holding in Grummer v.
Commissioner is stated as follows:
extrinsic evidence designed to alter the language
of a divorce decree or separation agreement will
not be considered in determining whether payments
constitute alimony or child support when the
agreement of the parties specifically and
unequivocally fixes the character of such
payments. * * *
Page: Previous 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011