- 27 -
Michael ex rel. Michael v. Lullo, 173 F.3d 503 (4th Cir. 1999);
Trust Servs. of Am. v. United States, 885 F.2d 561 (9th Cir.
1989); Estate of Brocato v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1999-424;
Law v. United States, 51 AFTR 2d 1343, 83-1 USTC par. 13,514
(N.D. Cal. 1982). The format of the estate tax closing letter,
as described or quoted in these cases, is to state that the
estate tax return has either been accepted as filed or after
adjustment to which the taxpayer agreed, to recite that the
letter is not a closing agreement under section 7121, and to
state that “we will not reopen this case” unless the three-prong
test set forth in the revenue procedure currently in effect is
satisfied, either by quoting the test or citing the revenue
procedure.
Petitioner fails to satisfy the strict standard for
equitable estoppel against the Government for at least three
reasons. First, as a threshold matter, there is no evidence of
ongoing active misrepresentations, a pervasive pattern of false
promises, or any affirmative misconduct by respondent. See Purer
v. United States, supra at 278.
Second, however the statements in the no change letter might
be characterized, petitioner has not demonstrated reliance on the
no change letter in changing her behavior to her detriment. In
order to satisfy the requirement of reliance, petitioner must
show that she changed her behavior as a result of the alleged
Page: Previous 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011