- 14 - deficiency was issued to petitioners within 6 years after they filed their 1995 and 1996 returns, we conclude that the notice of deficiency was timely, and respondent is not barred on this ground from assessing the deficiencies at issue. 2. Estoppel, Admission, and Res Judicata Theories Petitioners argue that respondent should be estopped from asserting deficiencies with respect to 1995, 1996, and 1997 because he prematurely assessed deficiencies for these years and then abated most, but not all,12 of the assessments. Petitioners contend that the abatement of the assessments equitably estops respondent from claiming that the abated amounts are owed and/or that respondent has, by virtue of the abatements, admitted that these amounts are not owed. Petitioners further claim that respondent’s assertion of the deficiencies is precluded under the doctrines of res judicata and collateral estoppel. Petitioners’ argument that respondent’s premature assessment and subsequent abatement of the deficiencies at issue gives rise to equitable estoppel is factually and legally baseless. Petitioners have shown no detrimental reliance, and, in any event, “the abatement of an assessment is not a binding action 12 Petitioners seek to make something of the fact that respondent failed to abate $1.09 of the assessment against The Connell Business Co. for 1997. However, respondent has conceded all deficiencies determined with respect to the petitioner trusts, including that determined for The Connell Business Co. in 1997.Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011