- 31 -
respondent should be equitably estopped from imposing the
additions to tax at issue in these cases, we disagree with
petitioners for the reasons discussed below.
“Equitable estoppel is a judicial doctrine that ‘precludes a
party from denying his own acts or representations which induced
another to act to his detriment.’” Hofstetter v. Commissioner,
98 T.C. 695, 700 (1992) (quoting Graff v. Commissioner, 74 T.C.
743, 761 (1980), affd. 673 F.2d 784 (5th Cir. 1982)). It is well
established that the doctrine of equitable estoppel should be
applied against the Commissioner “‘with the utmost caution and
restraint.’” Kronish v. Commissioner, 90 T.C. 684, 695 (1988)
(quoting Boulez v. Commissioner, 76 T.C. 209, 214-215 (1981),
affd. 810 F.2d 209 (D.C. Cir. 1987)). Furthermore, the Supreme
Court has stated that the Government may not be estopped on the
same grounds as other litigants. OPM v. Richmond, 496 U.S. 414,
419 (1990); Heckler v. Cmty. Health Servs., 467 U.S. 51, 60
(1984).
The following conditions must be satisfied before equitable
estoppel will be applied against the Government: (1) A false
representation or wrongful, misleading silence by the party
against whom the opposing party seeks to invoke the doctrine; (2)
an error in a statement of fact and not in an opinion or
statement of law; (3) ignorance of the true facts; (4) reasonable
reliance on the acts or statements of the one against whom
Page: Previous 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011