- 12 - modify the meaning of his written agreement, except in limited circumstances, holding: a party [to an agreement] can challenge the tax consequences of his agreement as construed by the Commissioner only by adducing proof which in an action between the parties to the agreement would be admissible to alter that construction or to show its unenforceability because of mistake, undue influence, fraud, duress, etc. * * * The Danielson rule has been adopted by the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, see Spector v. Commissioner, 641 F.2d 376 (5th Cir. 1981), revg. 71 T.C. 1017 (1979), to which appeal of this case would lie absent stipulation to the contrary, and so we are bound to apply the Danielson rule in the instant case, see Golsen v. Commissioner, 54 T.C. 742, 756-757 (1970), affd. 445 F.2d 985 (10th Cir. 1971). Petitioner argues that the Danielson rule would not operate to exclude extrinsic evidence in this case because such evidence would tend to show mistake. We agree. There is ample evidence to support the proposition that the failure to include a covenant not to compete in the Purchase Agreement constituted a mutual mistake or scrivener’s error. Cf. Woods v. Commissioner, 92 T.C. 776 (1989); State Pipe & Nipple Corp. v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1983-339. The record establishes that arrangements for the buyout were made hurriedly against a yearend deadline, without the assistance of an attorney who had previously provided services to petitioner. Both parties to the agreement testifiedPage: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011