- 15 -
misrepresented that petitioner would be entitled to refunds under
section 6015(c). In that case, the issue was whether an offer in
compromise could be set aside where the taxpayer entered into the
agreement after being told by an agent of the Government that the
tax liabilities covered in the agreement were not barred by the
statute of limitations. The Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit found that the misrepresentation by the agent induced the
offer in compromise, and therefore the agreement was voidable for
misrepresentation. Id. at 71-72. The circumstances of this case
are distinguishable. As shown by our previous findings, any
misrepresentation by Mr. Zukle did not induce the offer in
compromise. If anything, Mr. Zukle’s statement that petitioner
would be entitled to refunds under section 6015(c) should have
induced petitioner to withdraw the pending offer, at least during
the period before the mistake was corrected through Mr. McCabe’s
diligence. Accordingly, the offer in compromise is not voidable
for misrepresentation.
In his answering brief, petitioner argues for the first time
that the doctrine of equitable estoppel applies. Our practice is
not to consider new issues raised for the first time in an
answering brief. Krause v. Commissioner, 99 T.C. 132, 177
(1992), affd. sub nom. Hildebrand v. Commissioner, 28 F.3d 1024
(10th Cir. 1994); Weiss v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1999-17 n.5.
The parties submitted the issue fully stipulated, and there is no
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011