- 12 -
instead that the ranch was not partnership property and that the
gain from the sale of the ranch was not income to them. Several
years later, during the audit of the 1988 partnership return,
petitioner failed to inform respondent that title to the ranch
was held individually or that he had changed his prior reporting
position that the ranch was partnership property.
These facts satisfy the three elements necessary to invoke
the duty of consistency under Beltzer v. United States, supra.
First, petitioner consistently represented that the ranch was
partnership property, from the filing of the first partnership
return to the filing of the partnership’s final return. That
representation carried over to petitioner’s Federal income tax
returns for 1982 through 1987. Second, respondent acquiesced in
and relied upon these representations to respondent’s detriment
by allowing the period of limitations on assessment to run on
petitioners’ income tax returns without adjusting their
distributive share of partnership income and deductions. See
sec. 6501. Third, petitioner now claims that his previous
representations were in error and seeks to change the
representation on his 1988 Federal income tax return.
Petitioners argue that the duty of consistency should not
apply because they are innocent of any intentional wrongdoing.
They contend that they did not learn that title to the ranch was
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011