- 6 -
"I'm going by what they told me. If they were wrong and
they made a mistake, I believed them. I trusted in them."
Although not explicitly stated, petitioner's argument essentially
amounts to a claim of estoppel.
Equitable estoppel is a judicial doctrine that precludes a
party from denying that party's own acts or representations that
induced another to act to his or her detriment. E.g., Graff v.
Commissioner, 74 T.C. 743, 761 (1980), affd. 673 F.2d 784 (5th
Cir. 1982). It is to be applied against the Commissioner only
with utmost caution and restraint. E.g., Hofstetter v.
Commissioner, 98 T.C. 695, 700 (1992).
The doctrine of estoppel is not applicable unless the party
relying on it establishes all of the following elements at a
minimum:
(1) There must be a false representation or wrongful
misleading silence; (2) the error must be in a statement of
fact and not in an opinion or a statement of law; (3) the
person claiming the benefits of estoppel must be ignorant of
the true facts; and (4) he must be adversely affected by the
acts or statements of the person against whom an estoppel is
claimed. * * *
Estate of Emerson v. Commissioner, 67 T.C. 612, 617-618 (1977);
see also Lignos v. United States, 439 F.2d 1365, 1368 (2d Cir.
1971).
Even if we assume that petitioner relied on respondent's
letter, petitioner has not presented any evidence that he was
adversely affected by his reliance on the letter. Petitioner
suffered no detriment that is legally recognizable. He is only
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011