Estate of Hilda Ashman, Deceased, Phillip Ashman, Personal Representative - Page 4

                                        - 4 -                                         

               Petitioner argues that the 1993 GNA distribution is a                  
          nontaxable return of principal.  Petitioner contends that the               
          taxable event with respect to the GNA distribution occurred                 
          during 1990, and not during 1993, because the 1990 pension                  
          distribution was not timely rolled over pursuant to section                 
          402(a).  Respondent argues that petitioner is estopped under the            
          duty of consistency from denying that there was a timely rollover           
          of the 1990 pension distribution as reported on decedent's 1990             
          return.  Petitioner argues that the duty of consistency is not a            
          viable judicial doctrine.  Alternatively, petitioner argues that            
          the duty of consistency does not apply in this case.2                       
               The duty of consistency, or quasi-estoppel, is an equitable            
          doctrine that prevents a taxpayer from adopting a position for a            
          particular year and, after the period of limitations has expired            
          for that year, adopting a contrary position that affects his or             
          her tax liability for an open year.  E.g., Herrington v.                    
          Commissioner, 854 F.2d 755, 757 (5th Cir. 1988), affg. Glass v.             
          Commissioner, 87 T.C. 1087 (1986); LeFever v. Commissioner, 103             
          T.C. 525, 541-542 (1994), affd. 100 F.3d 778 (10th Cir. 1996).              
          The duty of consistency applies when:  (1) The taxpayer made a              
          representation or reported an item for Federal income tax                   
          purposes in one year, (2) the Commissioner acquiesced in or                 

               2  Petitioner also contends that respondent reneged on a               
          settlement proposal and asserted the duty of consistency on the             
          eve of trial.  In this regard, petitioner argues that we should             
          not grant equitable relief to respondent through the duty of                
          consistency because respondent has unclean hands.  We find this             
          aspect of petitioner's argument to be without merit.                        


Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011