- 9 -
ascertainable economic benefits under the policy in the years at
issue; therefore, she constructively received the premium
payments.
Ms. Marten also argues in her motion for further
reconsideration that Mr. Lane should be judicially estopped from
denying that the premium payments were intended for Niklas’
health care. Ms. Marten claims that Mr. Lane’s present position
that the policy was for her support is inconsistent with his
prior position before the superior court (which that court
accepted) that the policy was to provide for Niklas’ care.
The Tax Court, as well as most Federal Courts of Appeals,
have accepted the doctrine of judicial estoppel.4 See Helfand v.
Gerson, 105 F.3d 530 (9th Cir. 1997); United States ex rel. Am.
Bank v. C.I.T. Constr., Inc., 944 F.2d 253, 257-259 (5th Cir.
1991); McKinnon v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield, 935 F.2d 1187, 1192-
1193 (11th Cir. 1991); Allen v. Zurich Ins. Co., 667 F.2d 1162,
1166-1168 (4th Cir. 1982); Huddleston v. Commissioner, 100 T.C.
17, 27-29 (1993). But see Chrysler Credit Corp. v. Country
Chrysler, Inc., 928 F.2d 1509, 1520 n.10 (10th Cir. 1991).
Judicial estoppel is an equitable doctrine which operates to
“prevent parties from taking positions that are inconsistent with
4 We note that the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit,
the court to which this case is appealable, has adopted the
doctrine of judicial estoppel. See Helfand v. Gerson, 105 F.3d
530 (9th Cir. 1997); Golsen v. Commissioner, 54 T.C. 742 (1970),
affd. 445 F.2d 985 (10th Cir. 1971).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011