- 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