- 39 -
uniformly disregard (and may even find fraudulent) backdated
documents involves taxpayer efforts to use those documents solely
in order to achieve a tax result dependent upon timely action by
the taxpayer, where the time to act had already passed. See
e.g., United States v. Whistler, 139 Fed. Appx. 1 (9th Cir.
2005); Dobrich v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1997-477, supplemented
T.C. Memo. 1998-39, affd. without published opinion 188 F.3d 512
(9th Cir. 1999); Medieval Attractions N.V. v. Commissioner, T.C.
Memo. 1996-455. The circumstances described in the cases cited
by petitioners are factually distinguishable from the
circumstances surrounding the execution of the assignment and
assumption agreement. Those cases are, therefore, inapposite.11
(3) The Effective Date Included in the Assignment and
Assumption Agreement Was Not a Mutual Mistake
Reformable by Parol Evidence Under Georgia Law
As noted supra, petitioners also argue, and respondent
disputes, that the specification in the assignment and assumption
agreement of a January 1, 1997, effective date was a mistake that
may be reformed under Georgia Law. Although we agree with
petitioners that the resolution of the issue is governed by
Georgia law, see, e.g., Estate of Holland v. Commissioner, T.C.
11 Also inapposite are the cases petitioners cite for the
proposition that Georgia’s parol evidence rule does not preclude
evidence of the actual execution date of a document. See, e.g.,
Smith v. Smith, 156 S.E.2d 901, 902 (Ga. 1967); Irwin v. Dailey,
118 S.E.2d 827, 829-830 (Ga. 1961). The issue in this case is
not the execution date of the assignment and assumption
agreement.
Page: Previous 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 Next
Last modified: November 10, 2007