- 14 -
partners as individuals or by the partnership is simply not
necessary to our decision regarding the duty of consistency. The
duty of consistency is an affirmative defense grounded in equity
and is designed to prevent taxpayers from changing a tax-
significant representation benefiting the taxpayer at a time when
the Commissioner is prevented by law from correcting the
taxpayer’s tax reporting position based on that representation.
We need not decide whether the representation in question is true
or false in order to decide whether petitioners are bound by the
duty of consistency. We need only decide if petitioners are
attempting to change a representation for tax purposes after
respondent has relied on that representation and the applicable
period of limitations has expired. The duty of consistency
applies even if the original representation is erroneous, as long
as respondent demonstrates that the three elements necessary to
invoke the duty of consistency have been satisfied. See
Herrington v. Commissioner, 854 F.2d 755, 757 (5th Cir. 1988),
affg. Glass v. Commissioner, 87 T.C. 1087 (1986). In this case,
once we determine that the duty of consistency applies, we no
longer care who actually owned the ranch since, for Federal
income tax purposes, the duty of consistency requires petitioners
to be bound by their prior representations regarding the ranch’s
ownership. For this reason, we need not and do not decide who
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011