- 13 -
F.2d 209 (D.C. Cir. 1987). Two of these requirements are: (1)
The existence of a false representation or wrongful misleading
silence by the party against whom the doctrine is applied; and
(2) the party claiming the benefits of estoppel must be adversely
affected by the acts or statements of the other party. Kronish
v. Commissioner, supra at 695 & n.10; Estate of Emerson v.
Commissioner, supra at 617-618.10
The record contains no evidence of either requirement.
First, Revenue Agent Rigney did not mislead petitioner into
executing the Form 872. Revenue Agent Rigney testified that he
told Mr. Asselin in February 1993 that the period of limitations
was scheduled to expire on June 30, 1993, and he still had
additional work to complete with respect to petitioner's civil
investigation. Without the execution of a Form 872 extending the
period of limitations, respondent would have issued a notice of
deficiency, and petitioner would have lost the opportunity for a
settlement conference with respondent's Appeals Office. At this
time, Revenue Agent Rigney had no intention to refer petitioner's
case back to respondent's CID. Indeed, Revenue Agent Rigney
testified that it was not until July or August 1993 that he
10The remaining requirements are: (1) The error must be in
a statement of fact and not in an opinion or statement of law;
(2) the party claiming the benefits of estoppel must be ignorant
of the true facts; and (3) the party claiming the benefit of
estoppel must reasonably rely on the acts or statements of the
one against whom estoppel is claimed. Kronish v. Commissioner,
90 T.C. 684, 695 n.10 (1988).
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011