- 30 -
partnership’s one-half interest in the Riverside property was
$400,000, and that the fair market value of a 22.375-percent
interest in the partnership’s interest in that property (after
applying a 35-percent discount for marketability) was $58,175.
d. Value of the Kansas Farm
A one-fourth interest in the Kansas farm was transferred to
the partnership on May 30, 1995.
The parties stipulated (in paragraph 57 of the stipulation
of facts) that the fair market value of a 100-percent interest in
the Kansas farm on May 30, 1995, was $40,000. Respondent
contends that stipulation 57 should have stated that the
partnership’s 25-percent interest in the Kansas farm had a fair
market value of $40,000.
After trial, respondent filed a motion for relief from
stipulation 57 on the grounds that, due to a scrivener’s error,
it contains a mutual mistake of fact relating to the value of the
Kansas farm. Petitioners contend that there was no mutual
mistake and that any mistake was solely respondent’s. See Stamm
Intl. Corp. v. Commissioner, 90 T.C. 315 (1988).
We agree with petitioners. Generally, a stipulation of fact
is binding on the parties, and the Court is bound to enforce it.
Rule 91(e); Stamos v. Commissioner, 87 T.C. 1451, 1454 (1986).
The draft of stipulation 57 exchanged by the parties stated that
the Kansas farm had a fair market value of $40,000. There is no
Page: Previous 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011