Joyce E. and Jerome G. Beery - Page 15

                                       - 15 -                                         
               We hold that the period applicable to the carrying forward             
          of petitioners' 1975-NOL expired on December 31, 1980, and was              
          not affected or suspended by petitioner's bankruptcy proceeding.            
               Petitioners argue that respondent should be equitably                  
          estopped from asserting the bar of the 5-year period, as                    
          applicable to 1975, on the carryforward of petitioner's 1975-NOL.           
          Petitioners' estoppel argument is based on alleged                          
          misrepresentations made to petitioners by respondent's                      
          representatives regarding whether the 15-year carryforward period           
          available under section 172, as amended in 1981, applied to                 
          petitioner's 1975-NOL and on respondent’s failure to disallow               
          petitioners' claimed carryforward deductions relating to the                
          1975-NOL as claimed on petitioners' joint Federal income tax                
          returns for 11 years (namely, for 1978 through 1988).                       
               Equitable estoppel against the Government is considered an             
          extraordinary remedy and is applied with the "utmost caution and            
          restraint".  The Board of County Commrs. v. Isaac, 18 F.3d 1492,            
          1499 (10th Cir. 1994); Estate of Emerson v. Commissioner, 67 T.C.           
          612, 617 (1977).                                                            
               Generally, equitable estoppel is unavailable against the               
          Government without a showing of at least the following elements             
          by the claimant:  (1) The Government made false representations             
          with regard to material facts; (2) the claimant was ignorant of             
          the true facts; (3) the claimant reasonably relied on the                   
          Government's misrepresentations; and (4) the claimant relied on             




Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011