- 24 -
possibilities, it follows that the “appraised value” contemplated
by section 1.1014-3(a), Income Tax Regs., for each work of art in
the collection is a value that includes the blockage discount
determined by the Panel. Accordingly, under section 1014 and
section 1.1014-3(a), Income Tax Regs., petitioners’ basis in each
work of art in the collection is equal to the work’s
proportionately discounted value as determined for estate tax
purposes.
2. Whether Respondent Has Established That Petitioners Are
Estopped by the Duty of Consistency
The “duty of consistency”, sometimes referred to as quasi-
estoppel, applies in this Court. E.g., Estate of Letts v.
Commissioner, 109 T.C. 290, 296-301 (1997); Cluck v.
Commissioner, 105 T.C. 324, 331-336 (1995); LeFever v.
Commissioner, 103 T.C. 525, 541-545 (1994), affd. 100 F.3d 778
(10th Cir. 1996); Unvert v. Commissioner, 72 T.C. 807, 814-818
(1979), affd. 656 F.2d 483 (9th Cir. 1981); Mayfair Minerals,
Inc. v. Commissioner, 56 T.C. 82, 89-94 (1971), affd. 456 F.2d
622 (5th Cir. 1972). The duty of consistency is based on the
theory that a taxpayer has a duty to be consistent in the tax
treatment of items and will not be permitted to benefit from the
taxpayer’s own prior error or omission. LeFever v. Commissioner,
supra at 541. The duty of consistency doctrine prevents a
taxpayer from taking one position one year and a contrary
position in a later year after the limitations period has run for
Page: Previous 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011