- 8 -
because their income tax liabilities would have been paid off if
they had not received respondent’s September 26, 1996, letter.
Because the validity of the underlying tax liability, i.e.,
the amount unpaid after application of voluntary payments, is
properly at issue, we review respondent’s determination de novo.
Landry v. Commissioner, 116 T.C. 60, 62 (2001); Goza v.
Commissioner, 114 T.C. 176, 181-182 (2000).
Equitable estoppel is a judicial doctrine that precludes a
party from denying the party’s own representations which induced
another to act to his or her detriment. Hofstetter v.
Commissioner, 98 T.C. 695, 700 (1992). We have 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
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011