- 9 -
from taking a position one year, and then a contrary position in
a later year after the period of limitations has expired on the
first year. See id. at 541-542; see also United States v.
Matheson, 532 F.2d 809, 819 (2d Cir. 1976)(estate estopped to
deny decedent's U.S. citizenship after she represented to the
U.S. Government for a period of more than 20 years that she was a
citizen of the United States). Petitioner argues that under
certain circumstances, the duty of consistency may also apply to
the Commissioner. See, e.g., Conway Import Co. v. United States,
311 F. Supp. 5, 14-15 (E.D.N.Y. 1969)(Commissioner estopped to
apply ruling retroactively to recordkeeping system that had been
substantially accepted for a long period of time and reviewed by
many agents at different levels of authority). This type of
situation is not present here. Petitioner made an honest mistake
in preparing a return, which respondent discovered on audit. The
duty of consistency does not apply against respondent.
Although petitioner argues the duty of consistency applies,
petitioner also mentions equitable estoppel and argues on brief
that respondent was not timely in reviewing the invalid election,
and thereby "provided a wrongful misleading silence upon which
the taxpayer relied". To invoke estoppel against the Government,
the party seeking estoppel must show at a minimum: (1) The
existence of a false representation or wrongful misleading
silence by the other party; (2) ignorance of the facts; (3)
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011