- 13 - 1993, by $1,860,621--the exact amount of the erroneous adjustment Mr. Rosales made in the year ended June 30, 1991.) C. Duty of Consistency The duty of consistency (also known as the doctrine of quasi- estoppel) prevents a party from benefiting in a subsequent year from an error that was made in a prior year. See Southern Pac. Transp. Co. v. Commissioner, 75 T.C. 497, 559-560 (1980). When the duty of consistency applies, the taxpayer must recognize income even though the earlier deduction was improper. Id. at 560. 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 relied on that representation or report for that year, and (3) the taxpayer attempts to change that representation or report in a subsequent year, after the period of limitations has expired with respect to the year of the representation or report, and the change is detrimental to the Commissioner. Herrington v. Commissioner, 854 F.2d 755, 758 (5th Cir. 1988), affg. Glass v. Commissioner, 87 T.C. 1087 (1986). When the duty of consistency applies, the Commissioner may proceed as if the representation or report on which the Commissioner relied continues to be true, although in fact it is not. The taxpayer is estopped from taking a position to the contrary. Herrington v. Commissioner, supra.Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011