- 5 -
Motion to Dismiss on Ground of Estoppel
Petitioner's first motion to dismiss is predicated on the
argument that respondent is collaterally and equitably estopped
from issuing a notice of deficiency due to the earlier issuance
of the no-change letter to petitioner for the same tax years.
Petitioner asks that the notice of deficiency be cancelled.
Petitioner has not directly raised any issue as to the
impropriety, under section 7605(b), of a second examination after
the issuance of the reopening letter. The record does not
indicate whether a second examination occurred.2 In any event,
even if there was a second examination, the record provides no
basis for concluding that there was any impropriety. United
States v. Powell, 379 U.S. 48 (1964). Petitioner's emphasis on
the absence of "new information", obtained by respondent after
the issuance of the no-change letter suggests that he may be
seeking support for his claim on the basis that respondent
violated her reopening policy as set forth in Rev. Proc. 85-13,
1985-1 C.B. 514.3 We are not so persuaded. We think the reasons
2 If there was no second examination, no violation of sec.
7605(b) occurred. E.g., Hough v. Commissioner, 882 F.2d 1271
(7th Cir. 1989), affg. T.C. Memo. 1986-229; Digby v.
Commissioner, 103 T.C. 441 (1994).
3 Sec. 4, entitled "POLICY", states:
.01 The Internal Revenue Service will not reopen any
case closed after examination by a district office or
service center to make an adjustment unfavorable to the
taxpayer unless:
(continued...)
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011