17
respondent is equitably estopped from arguing that their refund
claim is time barred.
The principle of equitable estoppel prohibits a party from
asserting a statute of limitations as a defense where that
party's conduct has induced another to refrain from bringing suit
during the applicable limitations period. The Supreme Court
addressed the issue of equitable estoppel in Heckler v. Community
Health Services, 467 U.S. 51, 59 (1984):
Estoppel is an equitable doctrine to avoid
injustice in particular cases. While a hallmark of the
doctrine is its flexible application, * * *
* * * * * * *
the party claiming the estoppel must have relied on its
adversary's conduct "in such a manner as to change his
position for the worse," and that reliance must have
been reasonable in that the party claiming the estoppel
did not know nor should it have known that its
adversary's conduct was misleading. * * * [Fn. refs.
omitted.]
Therefore, to succeed on a traditional estoppel grounds defense
the litigant must prove (1) a misrepresentation by another party
(2) which he reasonably relied upon (3) to his detriment. United
States v. Asmar, 827 F.2d 907, 912 (3d Cir. 1987); Dade County v.
Rohr Indus., Inc., 826 F.2d 983 (11th Cir. 1987).
Additional considerations arise when a party alleges
estoppel against the Government, for "When the government is
unable to enforce the law because the conduct of its agents has
given arise to an estoppel, the interest of the citizenry as a
whole in obedience to the rule of law is undermined." Heckler v.
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011