Union Texas International Corporation, f.k.a. Union Texas Petroleum Corporation - Page 15

                                        - 15 -                                         
          respondent has met his burden of proving that these actions                  
          satisfy the first element of equitable estoppel.                             
               2. Fact or Law                                                          
               For equitable estoppel to apply, the misrepresentation or               
          wrongful misleading silence generally must originate in a                    
          statement of fact and not in an opinion or a statement of law.               
          Graff v. Commissioner, 74 T.C. at 761.                                       
               While it could be argued that the effect of New Petroleum's             
          merger into Energy is a legal question, the misrepresentations or            
          silence relate to the facts herein; namely, that at the time the             
          last three Forms 872 were signed New Petroleum existed, and that             
          the individuals signing the consents were its properly authorized            
          officers.  Given that Energy's misrepresentations or wrongful                
          misleading silences clearly originate in a statement of fact, we             
          find respondent has met his burden with respect to the second                
          element of equitable estoppel.                                               
               3. Detrimental Reliance                                                 
               "It is fundamental to the doctrine of estoppel that the                 
          party raising the issue must have been misled in reliance upon               
          the representations of his opponent." Century Data Sys., Inc. v.             
          Commissioner, 86 T.C. at 166; see also Atlas Oil & Ref. Corp. v.             
          Commissioner, 22 T.C. 552, 559 (1954) (taxpayer must be shown to             
          have taken some action which led Commissioner to postpone until              
          after the period of limitations expired the issuance of a notice             
          of deficiency that he was otherwise prepared to mail on a timely             
          basis).                                                                      



Page:  Previous  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011