- 17 -
Commissioner, 120 T.C. 109, 112 (2003); Hofstetter v.
Commissioner, 98 T.C. 695, 700 (1992). In tax contexts,
equitable estoppel will be applied against the Government only
with the utmost caution and restraint and upon the establishment
of prerequisite elements: (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) ignorance of the true
facts by the taxpayer; (4) reasonable reliance by the taxpayer 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. Wilkins v. Commissioner, supra at 112; Norfolk S. Corp.
v. Commissioner, 104 T.C. 13, 60 (1995), supplemented by 104 T.C.
417 (1995), affd. 140 F.3d 240 (4th Cir. 1998); see also Lignos
v. United States, 439 F.2d 1365, 1368 (2d Cir. 1971).
Here, the record fails to show the existence of the required
elements for equitable estoppel. Petitioner claims:
“Respondent, in giving Ms. Dormer a final payoff figure of
$4,244.75, made a misrepresentation to Ms. Dormer.” The
difficulty with this statement is that the evidence does not
establish that the $4,244.75 amount was ever represented as a
“final payoff figure” by respondent.
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011