John W. Banks, III - Page 24




                                       - 24 -                                         
         testimony unpersuasive and self-serving.  We also find no                    
         substantiation (nor perceive any rationale) for petitioner’s                 
         claim to a $14,000 deduction for alleged loan repayments to his              
         PERS account, or to a $14,000 deduction for alleged withholding              
         from his pay for his wrongful use of his employer’s property.                
              As to the alimony, petitioner claims a deduction of                     
         $72,013.62 for alimony paid to his first wife.  Petitioner paid              
         that sum into court in 1990 in connection with a judgment                    
         rendered in his divorce proceeding with Vera Banks.  The court               
         transferred the funds to Vera Banks in 1993.  Petitioner concedes            
         that he deducted this alimony for 1993 but claims that section               
         461(f) provides that the alimony was deductible in 1990.                     
              While we agree that the deduction would otherwise be allowed            
         in 1990, see sec. 461(f), the circumstances of this case prohibit            
         petitioner from claiming the deduction in that year.  The “duty              
         of consistency”, sometimes referred to as quasi-estoppel, is an              
         equitable doctrine that Federal courts apply in appropriate cases            
         to prevent unfair avoidance of tax.  Beltzer v. United States,               
         495 F.2d 211, 212 (8th Cir. 1974); Cluck v. Commissioner, 105                
         T.C. 324 (1995); LeFever v. Commissioner, 103 T.C. 525 (1994),               
         affd. 100 F.3d 778 (10th Cir. 1996).  The doctrine “is based on              
         the theory that the taxpayer owes the Commissioner the duty to be            
         consistent in the tax treatment of items and will not be                     
         permitted to benefit from the taxpayer's own prior error or                  






Page:  Previous  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011