- 9 -
Nor do we understand the Supreme Court decision in United
States v. Brockamp, supra, to undermine the use of the duty of
consistency doctrine by lower courts. This Court has applied the
duty of consistency as a quasi-equitable doctrine in numerous
cases, most recently in Estate of Letts v. Commissioner, supra.
The duty of consistency is founded on R.H. Stearns Co. v. United
States, 291 U.S. 54 (1934), in which the Supreme Court held that
equitable principles apply in tax cases. In United States v.
Brockamp, supra, the Supreme Court held that the statutory period
to file a tax refund claim is not tolled for nonstatutory
equitable reasons. The duty of consistency was not the subject
matter of the Brockamp Court. Petitioner, nevertheless, argues
that the duty of consistency is an equitable exception to the
statute of limitations and that Brockamp provides there are no
equitable exceptions to the period of limitations. The statute
of limitations is not tolled or changed by the application of the
duty of consistency because the resulting tax is being determined
and assessed for an open year. Herrington v. Commissioner, 854
F.2d 755, 757 (5th Cir. 1988). Moreover, we have previously
found that the duty of consistency contributes to the finality
and repose of the statute of limitations by holding taxpayers to
the reporting of an item in a closed year. Cluck v.
Commissioner, 105 T.C. at 332; Mayfair Minerals, Inc. v.
Commissioner, 56 T.C. 82, 86 (1971), affd. per curiam 456 F.2d
622 (5th Cir. 1972); Bartel v. Commissioner, 54 T.C. 25, 32
(1970). Accordingly, the decision in United States v. Brockamp,
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011