- 6 -
petitioner has not shown all the elements necessary to invoke the
doctrine of equitable estoppel. We agree with respondent.
It is well established that the estoppel doctrine should be
applied against the Commissioner with the utmost caution and
restraint. Schuster v. Commissioner, 312 F.2d 311, 317 (9th Cir.
1962), affg. in part and revg. in part 32 T.C. 998 (1959); Boulez
v. Commissioner, 76 T.C. 209, 214-215 (1981), affd. 810 F.2d 209
(D.C. Cir. 1987); Estate of Emerson v. Commissioner, 67 T.C. 612,
617 (1977). The following elements must be shown before
equitable estoppel will be applied against the Government: (1) A
false representation or wrongful misleading silence by the party
against whom estoppel is claimed; (2) error in a statement of
fact and not in an opinion or statement of law; (3) ignorance of
the true facts; (4) reasonable reliance on the acts or statements
of the one against whom estoppel is claimed; and (5) a resulting
detriment to the party relying on the false statement or
misleading silence. Norfolk S. Corp. v. Commissioner, 104 T.C.
13, 60 (1995); see also Lignos v. United States, 439 F.2d 1365,
1368 (2d Cir. 1971); Hudock v. Commissioner, 65 T.C. 351, 363
(1975). Additionally, the Court of Appeals for the Third
Circuit, to which this case is appealable, has held that "a
litigant must prove 'affirmative misconduct' to succeed on an
estoppel claim against the government." United States v. Asmar,
827 F.2d 907, 912 (3d Cir. 1987). The burden of proof is on the
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011