- 19 -
Grummer v. Commissioner, 46 T.C. at 680. In that case, the
Court found "no ambiguity of the agreement." Id. at 679.
The Danielson rule, the "strong proof" rule, and the
Grummer holding all relate to the same issue: whether a
party to a binding agreement should be permitted to avoid
the tax consequences that would otherwise flow from the
unambiguous terms of the agreement. The Danielson rule and
the "strong proof" rule differ in the level of proof
necessary to challenge the tax consequences of an
agreement. The Grummer case adopts a rule prohibiting
consideration of extrinsic evidence in interpreting the
unambiguous language of a divorce decree or separation
agreement.
None of the three theories relied upon by respondent
apply to the instant case. All three theories apply only
in the case of an unambiguous agreement. However, we find
paragraph 1.f) of the Annulment Agreement to be ambiguous
because it does not state whether, or to what extent, the
"periodic support payments" are in settlement of a claim
for damages under the Bartling lawsuit or are payments in
connection with the annulment of petitioner's purported
marriage to Ms. Wagner. Paragraph 1 of the Annulment
Agreement states that the transfers of property and
Page: Previous 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011