Estate of Marcia P. Hoffman, deceased, Elisabeth Hoffman, Personal Representative - Page 13




                                       - 13 -                                         
          is unambiguous and provides for guaranteed payments which survive           
          decedent’s death and are includable in the gross estate.                    
               The parties presented arguments on brief regarding whether             
          we should apply the rule enunciated in Commissioner v. Danielson,           
          378 F.2d 771 (3d Cir. 1967), vacating and remanding 44 T.C. 549             
          (1965),9 or the less stringent “strong proof” rule.10  However,             
          the Danielson rule and the strong-proof rule apply only in the              
          case of an unambiguous agreement.  See Gerlach v. Commissioner,             
          55 T.C. 156, 169 (1970); Pettid v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1999-           
          126.  Because we find the terms of the marital settlement                   
          ambiguous, we do not apply either the Danielson rule or the                 

               9The Danielson rule provides:                                          
               a party 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. * * *                    
               [Commissioner v. Danielson, 378 F.2d 771, 775 (3d Cir.                 
               1967), vacating and remanding 44 T.C. 549 (1965).]                     
               10Under the strong-proof rule, a taxpayer can ignore                   
          unambiguous terms of a binding agreement only if he presents                
          “strong proof”, that is, more than a preponderance of the                   
          evidence that the terms of the written instrument do not reflect            
          the actual intentions of the contracting parties.  Elrod v.                 
          Commissioner, 87 T.C. 1046, 1066 (1986).  This Court generally              
          applies the strong-proof rule.  See id. at 1065; Coleman v.                 
          Commissioner, 87 T.C. 178, 202 (1986), affd. without published              
          opinion 833 F.2d 303 (3d Cir. 1987); Ullman v. Commissioner, 29             
          T.C. 129 (1957), affd. 264 F.2d 305 (2d Cir. 1959).  However, if            
          the case is appealable to a circuit which has adopted the                   
          Danielson rule, then we are bound to apply that rule.  See Golsen           
          v. Commissioner, 54 T.C. 742, 756-757 (1970), affd. 445 F.2d 985            
          (10th Cir. 1971).                                                           





Page:  Previous  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011