W. Richard and Janice J. Morgan - Page 7

                                        - 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