- 7 -
Commissioner, supra at 700 n.4.5 We shall, however, treat
petitioner's motion to dismiss as a motion for summary judgment
based upon claimed estoppel as a result of the no-change letter.
Petitioner argues that respondent is equitably estopped from
issuing a notice of deficiency for the 1981 and 1982 tax years
due to the earlier issuance of a no-change letter for those
years, along with his acquittal on the charge of conspiracy to
defraud the United States. He explains that following the
issuance of the no-change letter, his filing a motion for a new
trial with the District Court in Rhode Island spurred the
prosecutor to meet with respondent's agents with respect to the
no-change letter. He further explains that this meeting led to
the issuance of the reopening letter with respect to the 1981 and
1982 tax years. Petitioner argues that this letter resulted in
the denial of his request for a new trial, and nearly 1 year of
additional incarceration. He contends that there was no new
information on which to base the reopening letter, only a desire
to accommodate the prosecutor "and continue the illegal
incarceration of the Petitioner." He thus asserts that he may
rely upon the no-change letter under the doctrine of equitable or
collateral estoppel.
5 Compare United States v. Powell, 379 U.S. 48, 58 (1964), where
the Supreme Court adopted a narrow view of circumstances that
would constitute improper purpose justifying judicial refusal to
enforce a summons.
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