- 24 -
remedy. No remedy would be warranted. There was no adjustment
in the deficiency notice related to the bartering proceeds issue;
petitioner suffered no injury as a result of the alleged
violation of section 7605(b). See Rice v. Commissioner, supra at
note 11 and cases cited therein.
c. Respondent Is Not Equitably Estopped From Issuing the
Notice of Deficiency.
“Equitable estoppel is a judicial doctrine that ‘precludes a
party from denying his own acts or representations which induced
another to act to his detriment.’” Hofstetter v. Commissioner,
98 T.C. 695, 700 (1992) (quoting Graff v. Commissioner, 74 T.C.
743, 761 (1980), affd. 673 F.2d 784 (5th Cir. 1982)). The
traditional elements of equitable estoppel--all of which must be
satisfied to invoke the doctrine--are: (1) A false
representation or misleading silence by the party against whom
the doctrine is to be invoked; (2) an error in a statement of
fact and not an opinion or statement of law; (3) ignorance of the
fact by the representee; (4) reasonable reliance on the act or
statement by the representee; and (5) detriment to the
representee. See Norfolk S. Corp. v. Commissioner, 104 T.C. 13,
60 (1995), affd. 140 F.3d 240 (4th Cir. 1998).
Equitable estoppel may not be asserted against the
Government “‘on the same terms as any other litigant’”. United
States v. Hatcher, 922 F.2d 1402, 1410 (9th Cir. 1991) (quoting
Page: Previous 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011