- 3 -
petitioner not to report it. Petitioner testified that he knew
that this was improper, but he felt that the agent was doing him
a favor.
Petitioner contends that respondent is estopped from
asserting a deficiency or an addition to tax based on the
inclusion of $10,365 in death benefits, $38 in dividends, and $12
of interest that petitioner failed to report in his gross income.
Petitioner’s theory is that, since respondent assisted petitioner
in filing his return by providing him with the third-party
information available to respondent as of November 1998, if there
was taxable income that petitioner failed to report, it is
respondent’s fault, and, therefore, respondent should be
precluded from asserting a deficiency or addition to tax. We
disagree.
The traditional elements of estoppel are: (1) A
misrepresentation or omission of a material fact by another
party; (2) a reasonable reliance on that misrepresentation or
omission; and (3) a detriment to the other party. See United
States v. Asmar, 827 F.2d 907, 912 (3d Cir. 1987).
Assuming that the Internal Revenue Service Center employee
gave petitioner incorrect advice (which has a decidedly hollow
ring), petitioner may not claim estoppel against respondent based
on that advice. Even if we assume that misinformation was given
and that petitioner relied on that information, petitioner
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011