- 10 -
* * * * * * *
When that individual was reviewed, the corporate CPA
wrote a letter on his behalf to the IRS, and in the
results of this KEEAP 2, indeed, accepted his filing as
a capital gain. * * *
* * * * * * *
My only comment was that I was looking for equitable
treatment in this matter. Whether or not--the company
was sold from one company to another. You know, they
merged. They paid out the old company owners and they
fulfilled their KEEAP responsibilities. I cannot tell
you beyond that what I have said right now. I’m not in
a position to argue that. My whole perspective was
that the treatment of one member of that program should
be equitable. [Emphasis added.]
Petitioners offered no further evidence or testimony directed
toward the appropriate legal classification of the income at
issue and did not file a posttrial brief.
Thus, petitioners are apparently relying on a contention
that respondent should be estopped from determining that the plan
payment is ordinary income based upon the alleged treatment of a
similarly situated taxpayer. Although we do not doubt
petitioners’ sincerity, the Court lacks any grounds for departure
from the result obtaining in this case under the governing
statutes. To the extent that petitioners raise an argument for
equitable estoppel, their situation fails to satisfy the
requisite elements for relief.
Equitable estoppel is a judicial doctrine that operates to
preclude a party from denying its own acts or representations
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011