- 11 -
2. Equitable Estoppel
Petitioner contends further that equitable estoppel prevents
the Commissioner from requiring petitioner to include the New
York City 1992 pension payments in his 1992 gross income because
he had received a "closing letter" from the IRS accepting as
filed his 1990 return which had excluded such 1990 payments from
gross income. The traditional elements of equitable estoppel
have been stated to be: "(1) conduct constituting a
representation of a material fact; (2) actual or imputed
knowledge of such fact by the representor; (3) ignorance of the
fact by the representee; (4) actual or imputed expectation by the
representor that the representee will act in reliance upon the
representation; (5) actual reliance thereon; and (6) detriment on
the part of the representee." Graff v. Commissioner, 74 T.C.
743, 761 (1980), affd. 673 F.2d 784 (5th Cir. 1982). And the
Court in Graff pointed out that "Although the doctrine of
equitable estoppel is not inapplicable to the Federal Government,
it has been applied to such Government with caution and only
where justice and fair play require it. Federal Crop Ins. Corp.
v. Merrill, 332 U.S. 380 (1947); Goldstein v. United States, 227
F.2d 1, 4 (8th Cir. 1955)."
The doctrine of equitable estoppel does not bar the
Commissioner from correcting a mistake of law, Automobile Club v.
Commissioner, 353 U.S. 180, 183 (1957), absent unfair conduct on
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011