- 12 -
that Elwood's basis in the Grapevine property was $263,625, which
is one-fourth of the value which the appraisal attached to the
Estate's Federal estate tax return placed on the Grapevine
property as of the date of Martha Cluck's death. Petitioner
argues that the duty of consistency is inapplicable in this case
and that, under all the facts and circumstances of this case, she
has established that the Grapevine property had a fair market
value of $2,500,000 on the date of Martha Cluck's death, and
therefore Elwood had a basis of $625,000 when he sold his
interest in the Grapevine property.
The "duty of consistency", sometimes referred to as quasi-
estoppel, applies in this Court. E.g., LeFever v. Commissioner,
103 T.C. 525, 541 (1994); Unvert v. Commissioner, 72 T.C. 807
(1979), affd. 656 F.2d 483 (9th Cir. 1981); Mayfair Minerals,
Inc. v. Commissioner, 56 T.C. 82 (1971), affd. 456 F.2d 622 (5th
Cir. 1972). The duty of consistency is based on the theory that
the taxpayer owes the Commissioner the duty to be consistent in
the tax treatment of items and will not be permitted to benefit
from the taxpayer's own prior error or omission. LeFever v.
Commissioner, supra. The duty of consistency doctrine prevents a
taxpayer from taking one position one year and a contrary
position in a later year after the limitations period has run for
the first year. Id. at 541-542. A taxpayer gaining governmental
benefits on the basis of a representation or an asserted position
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011