- 13 -
assessing the deficiencies against petitioner because OPM
provided petitioner with erroneous advice concerning the
taxability of her disability annuity payments. Even if we assume
that equitable estoppel can operate against the Government in
some circumstances, there is no basis for applying the concept
here. Cf. OPM v. Richmond, 496 U.S. 414, 420 (1990). The
traditional elements of estoppel are: (1) Misrepresentation by
the party against whom estoppel is asserted; (2) reasonable
reliance on that misrepresentation by the party asserting
estoppel; and (3) detriment to the party asserting estoppel.
Heckler v. Community Health Services, 467 U.S. 51, 59 (1984);
Kennedy v. United States, 965 F.2d 413, 417 (7th Cir. 1992).
Both the Heckler and Kennedy cases discussed the detriment
requirement. In Heckler v. Community Health Services, supra, the
Supreme Court described the "detriment" suffered as the inability
to retain money (medicare reimbursements) that should never have
been received in the first place. The Supreme Court stated:
this is not a case in which * * * [a party] has lost any
legal right, either vested or contingent, or suffered any
adverse change in its status. * * * Here * * * [the party]
lost no rights but merely was induced to do something which
could be corrected at a later time.
There is no doubt that * * * [the party] will be
adversely affected by the Government's recoupment of the
funds that it has already spent. It will surely have to
curtail its operations and may even be forced to seek relief
from its debts through bankruptcy. * * * [The party] may
need an extended period of repayment or other modifications
in the recoupment process if it is to continue to operate,
but questions concerning the Government's method of
enforcing collection are not before us. The question is
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011