- 15 -
adjustments to the Estate. Accordingly, respondent argues that
petitioner is estopped from arguing that Elwood's basis in the
Grapevine property was higher than one-fourth of the agreed value
of the Grapevine property in the stipulation of settled issues.
Petitioner argues that the duty of consistency does not
apply in this case, since she was not a party to the stipulation.
In analyzing whether the duty of consistency applies, we
note that respondent's initial premise is that the duty of
consistency would estop Elwood from arguing that his basis in the
Grapevine property was greater than one-fourth of the amount
agreed to in the stipulation of settled issues. We agree with
respondent's threshold premise, as it comports with our decision
in LeFever v. Commissioner, 103 T.C. 525 (1994).
However, even assuming the application of the duty of
consistency against Elwood, petitioner points out that Elwood is
not the taxpayer in this case. Petitioner asserts that she was
not a party to and did not enter into the stipulation of settled
issues, and therefore the first prong of the duty of consistency
test is not satisfied. Respondent argues that, due to the
relationship between Elwood and petitioner, petitioner was bound
by Elwood's representation.
Several courts have held that the duty of consistency
doctrine prevents a beneficiary of an estate from repudiating an
estate tax value, where the beneficiary had been a fiduciary of
the estate. Beltzer v. United States, 495 F.2d 211 (8th Cir.
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011