James P. Ellis - Page 7

                                        - 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