W. Richard and Janice J. Morgan - Page 8

                                        - 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