Ronald E. Boyer - Page 11

                                       - 11 -                                         
          to his or her detriment.  Hofstetter v. Commissioner, 98 T.C.               
          695, 700 (1992).  The Court has recognized that estoppel is                 
          applied against the Commissioner “with 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 Commissioner:                
          (1) The Commissioner knew the facts; (2) the Commissioner                   
          intended that his conduct be acted upon, or must have acted so              
          that the taxpayer asserting estoppel had a right to believe it              
          was so intended; (3) the taxpayer must have been ignorant of the            
          facts; and (4) the taxpayer must have reasonably relied on the              
          Commissioner’s conduct to the taxpayer’s substantial injury.                
          Edgewater Hosp., Inc. v. Bowen, 857 F.2d 1123, 1137 (7th Cir.               
          1988).  The party claiming estoppel has the burden of                       
          demonstrating the elements.  See Lyng v. Payne, 476 U.S. 926, 935           
          (1986); United States v. Asmar, 827 F.2d 907, 912 (3d Cir. 1987).           
               The Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, to which this            
          case is appealable, requires a fifth element for equitable                  
          estoppel to apply against the Commissioner.  The fifth element              
          requires the taxpayer asserting estoppel to demonstrate that the            
          Commissioner has engaged in “affirmative misconduct.”  See Gibson           






Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011