- 7 -
representations which induced another to act to his or her
detriment. Hofstetter v. Commisioner, 98 T.C. 695, 700 (1992).
This Court has recognized that estoppel is applied against the
Commissioner “with the utmost caution and restraint.” Id.;
Kronish v. Commissioner, 90 T.C. 684, 695 (1988); Boulez v.
Commissioner, 76 T.C. 209, 214-215 (1981), affd. 810 F.2d 209
(D.C. Cir. 1987); Estate of Emerson v. Commissioner, 67 T.C. 612,
617 (1977). The taxpayer must establish the following elements
before equitable estoppel will be applied against the Government:
(1) A false representation or wrongful, misleading silence by the
party against whom the estoppel is claimed; (2) an error in a
statement of fact and not in an opinion or statement of law;
(3) the taxpayer’s ignorance of the true facts; (4) the
taxpayer’s reasonable reliance on the acts or statements of the
one against whom estoppel is claimed; and (5) adverse effects
suffered by the taxpayer from the acts or statements of the one
against whom estoppel is claimed. Norfolk S. Corp. v.
Commissioner, 104 T.C. 13, 60 (1995), affd. 140 F.3d 240 (4th
Cir. 1998).
Estoppel requires a finding that the taxpayer relied on the
Government’s representations and suffered a detriment because of
that reliance. Id. The Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit,
to which this case is appealable, has also held that estoppel
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011