- 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