Kenneth and Dorothy Hitchen - Page 33

                                       - 33 -                                         
               Petitioners have not met the threshold requirement for                 
          equitable estoppel because they have not shown that respondent              
          engaged in affirmative misconduct of any kind.  To the contrary,            
          respondent took efforts to halt petitioners’ involvement by                 
          freezing their claimed 1986 refund and by notifying petitioners,            
          soon after they filed the return claiming the refund, that                  
          respondent believed the deductions claimed on the return were not           
          allowable.  Respondent’s delay in disallowing the future                    
          deductions and credits claimed by petitioners is not evidence of            
          affirmative misconduct by respondent, especially in light of the            
          changes made on the 1987 return and later returns in an apparent            
          attempt to avert respondent’s notice.                                       
               Because petitioners have not met the threshold requirement             
          for equitable estoppel against the government, we need not                  
          address the traditional conditions for application of equitable             
          estoppel.                                                                   
               To reflect the foregoing,                                              

                                             Decisions will be entered                
                                        under Rule 155.                               













Page:  Previous  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  30  31  32  33  

Last modified: May 25, 2011