- 8 -
against the Government also requires a showing of “affirmative
misconduct”. Rowden v. Warden, 89 F.3d 536, 537 (8th Cir. 1996).
Petitioners present their estoppel case as follows:
(1) Cooper made false representations to petitioners when she
represented that the tax liabilities for 1983 would be abated and
that there would be no more levies if petitioners signed the
installment agreement; (2) Cooper’s representations were
misstatements of fact, not of law; (3) petitioners believed that
the IRS was going to abate the tax liability for 1983, and, thus,
there would be no levies or collection so long as the installment
agreement was in effect; (4) petitioners entered into the
installment agreement for the 1981 and 1982 tax liabilities based
on their reliance on the representations of Cooper; and
(5) petitioners relied on Cooper’s statements to their detriment
because, absent the representation, petitioners would have
included 1983 in the installment agreement and there would be no
levy on the pension plan assets. Respondent argues that
petitioners have not satisfied the traditional requirements of
estoppel, much less shown affirmative misconduct, because there
was no reasonable reliance and no detriment to petitioners.
Petitioners’ claim of reliance on Cooper’s statements is not
reasonable. Petitioners were aware that, even though the 1983
tax liability was discharged in bankruptcy, the IRS retained the
right to levy on their exempt assets and that there was a lien
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011