- 13 -
courts will apply equitable estoppel against the Government: (1)
A false representation or wrongful, misleading silence by the
party against whom the estoppel is claimed; (2) an error in a
statement of fact and not in an opinion or statement of law; (3)
the taxpayer's ignorance of the true facts; (4) the taxpayer's
reasonable reliance on the acts or statements of the one against
whom estoppel is claimed; and (5) adverse effects suffered by the
taxpayer from the acts or statement of the one against whom
estoppel is being claimed. Norfolk S. Corp. v. Commissioner, 104
T.C. 13, 60, supplemented 104 T.C. 417 (1995); see also Lignos v.
United States, 439 F.2d 1365, 1368 (2d Cir. 1971); Hudock v.
Commissioner, 65 T.C. 351, 363 (1975). The burden of proof is on
the party claiming estoppel against the Government. Rule 142(a);
Hofstetter v. Commissioner, 98 T.C. 695, 701 (1992).
Petitioner has failed to carry his burden of proof. The
correspondence which petitioner cites to support his contention
that respondent audited petitioner's 1989 return consists merely
of a request for more information and subsequent confirmation
that petitioner complied appropriately. Moreover, respondent
sent a letter to petitioner stating that the examination branch
took "no action". Petitioner has provided no evidence to support
a claim for equitable estoppel. Each taxable year stands alone,
and the Commissioner may challenge in a succeeding year what was
condoned or agreed to in a former year. Automobile Club of Mich.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011