- 7 -
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 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 truth; (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 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). Estoppel requires a finding that the
taxpayer relied on the Government's representations and suffered
a detriment because of that reliance. Id.
Petitioners’ allegations do not satisfy the traditional
requirements of estoppel. Respondent’s alleged failure to
identify slavery reparations claims as a scam on its website does
not amount to a false representation or wrongful, misleading
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011