- 11 -
become final. See secs. 6211(a), 6212(a), and 6213(a). In a tax
case, the doctrine of estoppel is not applicable unless the party
relying on it establishes all of the following elements at a
minimum:
(1) There must be a false representation or
wrongful misleading silence; (2) the error
must be in a statement of fact and not in an
opinion or a statement of law; (3) the person
claiming the benefits of estoppel must be
ignorant of the true facts; and (4) he must
be adversely affected by the acts or
statements of the person against whom an
estoppel is claimed. * * *
Estate of Emerson v. Commissioner, 67 T.C. 612, 617-618 (1977);
see also Lignos v. United States, 439 F.2d 1365, 1368 (2d Cir.
1971). Petitioners have not established the required elements to
claim estoppel successfully. Among other things, they have not
presented any evidence that they were adversely affected by their
reliance on the letters. Cf. Schwager v. Commissioner, 64 T.C.
781, 789 (1975). Accordingly, the doctrine of estoppel does not
apply in the instant case.
Issue 2. Evidence of Petitioners’ Tax Returns
Petitioners also argue that this case should be dismissed
because respondent did not produce the original tax returns they
filed for 1993 and 1994, “or copies or reasonable versions” of
them. Petitioners cite no authority for this position and it is
without merit. See Fed. R. Evid. 1004 and 1005; Estate of Clarke
v. Commissioner, 54 T.C. 1149, 1163 (1970). Furthermore, the
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011