- 13 -
relied upon such certificates as a discharge of their total tax
liability, they did so because of a mistake on their part as to
the effect of a predecessor of section 6325), affd. 231 F.2d (5th
Cir. 1956). The Commissioner is not estopped from acting by a
mistake of law of the taxpayer. See id.
Furthermore, we do not find that petitioner could have
reasonably relied upon respondent’s conduct to conclude that the
Boyers no longer had any tax liability for either 1986 or 1987.
Respondent assessed the liabilities, gave notice and made demand
for payment, entered into agreements with the Boyers for payment
of the liabilities, and requested the Boyers to extend the
statutory period for collection for both 1986 and 1987. None of
these actions is either individually or collectively consistent
with respondent releasing the Boyers from their liabilities.
Moreover, the RFTL relating to the 1986 tax liability was
filed only 17 days after the Boyers agreed to extend the
collection period for that liability. Given this short
timeframe, a prudent person most likely would have contacted
respondent to ask why the RFTL had been filed and what effect, if
any, filing the RFTL had on the underlying tax liabilities.
Without asking for an explanation or contacting respondent, it
was unreasonable for the Boyers to think that respondent would
simply extinguish their tax liabilities a mere 17 days after the
Boyers agreed to extend the statutory period.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011