- 9 -
Petitioner has also failed to prove the fourth and fifth
elements of equitable estoppel. Petitioner claims that he signed
the three Forms 872 in reliance on respondent's statements that
the Form 872-A had not been received by the Newark District
Office. However, petitioner testified that he read the Form
872-A before signing it, including the methods described therein
for revoking the form. If petitioner intended to limit his
extension of the assessment period, he could have done so by
executing a Form 872-T at any time. See Grunwald v.
Commissioner, 86 T.C. 85, 88-89 (1986). In light of the clear
and unambiguous terms set out in the Form 872-A providing for
unilateral termination of the extension, we do not find that the
acts of reliance claimed by petitioner involve the level of
detriment necessary to bring this case within the category of
those "rare instances" where respondent should be estopped. See
Estate of Emerson v. Commissioner, 67 T.C. at 618. "Such
[equitable estoppel] claims cannot be sustained in the face of
the taxpayers' own failure to act as required by the Form 872-A
procedure." Stenclik v. Commissioner, supra at 28.
Consequently, respondent is not estopped from relying on the Form
872-A signed by petitioner.
To reflect the foregoing,
Decision will be entered
under Rule 155.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Last modified: May 25, 2011