6
liability was a misrepresentation by respondent, relied upon by
the attorney for his estate in closing his estate.
"Equitable estoppel is a judicial doctrine that 'precludes a
party from denying his own acts or representations which induced
another to act to his detriment.'" Hofstetter v. Commissioner,
98 T.C. 695, 700 (1992) (quoting Graff v. Commissioner, 74 T.C.
743, 761 (1980), affd. 673 F.2d 784 (5th Cir. 1982)). Estoppel
is applied against the Commissioner "with utmost caution and
restraint." Id. (quoting Estate of Emerson v. Commissioner, 67
T.C. 612, 617 (1977)); Kronish v. Commissioner, 90 T.C. 684, 695
(1988).
Detrimental reliance on the action of the Government by the
party seeking to invoke equitable estoppel is a key condition.
Hofstetter v. Commissioner, supra at 700; Boulez v. Commissioner,
76 T.C. 209, 215 (1981), affd. 810 F.2d 209 (D.C. Cir. 1987);
Hudock v. Commissioner, 65 T.C. 351, 363 (1975). There is no
evidence that decedent relied on the no-change letter to her
detriment. The attorney may have relied on the no-change letter
in closing Robert Severt's estate; however, decedent was the sole
beneficiary of the estate, and the no-change letter caused no
apparent detriment to her. In any event, she is severally liable
for the deficiency in 1993 income tax. Thus, petitioner has not
shown that estoppel applies against respondent.
To reflect the foregoing,
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011