- 9 -
taxpayer from the acts or statements of the one against whom
estoppel is claimed. Norfolk S. Corp. v. Commissioner, 104 T.C.
13, 60 (1995), affd. 140 F.3d 240 (4th Cir. 1998). If any one of
these elements is not present, equitable estoppel is not
appropriate.
As discussed below, we sustain respondent’s determinations
to proceed with the proposed levy action because equitable
estoppel is not appropriate in these cases.
Estoppel requires a finding that the taxpayer relied on the
Government’s representations and suffered a detriment because of
that reliance. Id. Regardless of the designation of the payment,
petitioners paid $1,000 per month on tax liabilities that they
were legally obligated to pay. Making payments on a legally due
tax does not constitute detrimental reliance. Hudock v.
Commissioner, 65 T.C. 351, 364 (1975).
Further, each monthly payment voucher enclosed with
petitioners’ payments listed “CIV PEN 06-30-84", indicating that
each payment was going toward the TFRP liabilities. Regardless
of whether petitioners disputed the TFRP liabilities, petitioners
were aware that each monthly payment was being applied to the
TFRP liabilities by their attachment of the designated payment
voucher to each payment. See Estate of Baumgardner v.
Commissioner, 85 T.C. 445, 460 (1985) (holding that respondent
properly allocated payments because the taxpayer received bills
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011