- 31 -
reliance of the party seeking to invoke the doctrine. Huddleston
v. Commissioner, supra at 26. Acceptance by a court does not
require that the party being estopped prevailed in the prior
proceeding with regard to the ultimate matter in dispute, but
rather only that a particular position or argument asserted by
the party in the prior proceeding was accepted by the court. Id.
Respondent’s position in this case is in no manner
contradictory to the position taken by the United States in the
criminal conviction of Mr. Hoyt. See, e.g., Goldman v.
Commissioner, 39 F.3d 402, 408 (2d Cir. 1994) (taxpayer-
appellants’ argument that an investment partnership “constituted
a fraud on the IRS, as found by a civil jury * * * and by the tax
court * * * cannot justify appellants’ own failure to exercise
reasonable care in claiming the losses derived from their
investment”), affg. T.C. Memo. 1993-480. To the contrary, this
Court has sustained a finding of negligence with respect to
investors who had been victims of deception by tax shelter
promoters. For example, in Klieger v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo.
1992-734, this Court held that taxpayers in a situation similar
to that of petitioners were negligent. In Klieger, we addressed
taxpayers’ involvement in certain investments that were sham
transactions that lacked economic substance:
Petitioners are taxpayers of modest means who were
euchred by Graham, a typical shifty promoter. Graham sold
petitioners worthless investments by giving spurious tax
advice that induced them to reduce their withholding and
Page: Previous 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011