- 19 -19
See also Hicks v. Harris, 606 F.2d 65, 68 (5th Cir. 1979)
("Estoppel cannot be asserted against the United States in
actions arising out of the exercise of its sovereign powers").
But see Simmons v. United States, 308 F.2d 938, 945 (5th Cir.
1962) ("It is well-settled that the doctrine of equitable
estoppel, in proper circumstances, and with appropriate caution,
may be invoked against the United States in cases involving
internal revenue taxation.").5
Under Golsen v. Commissioner, 54 T.C. 742, 756-757 (1970),
affd. 445 F.2d 985 (10th Cir. 1971), we are obligated to follow
the law as stated by the Court of Appeals in the circuit to which
this case is appealable. Therefore, in order for petitioners to
state a claim for equitable estoppel against the United States,
they must show: (1) That the traditional elements of estoppel
are present; (2) that the Government was acting in its private or
proprietary capacity rather than its public or sovereign
capacity; and (3) that the Government's agent was acting within
the scope of his or her authority. United States v. Vonderau,
837 F.2d 1540, 1541 (11th Cir. 1988).
The United States was acting in its sovereign capacity in
its efforts to collect taxes from petitioners. Collection of the
public revenue is a uniquely governmental function exercised by
5 The Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, in the en
banc decision Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206 (11th
Cir. 1981), adopted as precedent decisions of the former Court of
Appeals for the Fifth Circuit rendered prior to Oct. 1, 1981.
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