- 18 -
related to reopening the record. In these circumstances, our
rules do not support addressing the merits of petitioner’s
statute of limitations claim.4
C. Petitioner’s Estoppel Argument
In both his trial memorandum and his brief, petitioner
frames one of the issues as follows: “Whether respondent is
estopped from asserting that petitioner has failed adequately to
support the disallowed deductions.” His argument on brief under
the heading “Estoppel” then reads in its entirety:
5. Federal Courts, including administrative
courts of limited jurisdiction, are courts of equity.
6. Respondent’s audit changes taken as a whole
essentially shift petitioner’s deductions from Schedule
C to Schedule A, based on a premise contrary to the
course of dealing of the parties over a period
approaching ten years: one which has previously been
litigated and established; i.e., that respondent
acknowledges that petitioner is entitled to Schedule C
deductions as an aspect of his professional activities.
7. Respondent’s position initially appeared
grounded in the untenable premise that “if you get a W-
2, you can’t use a Schedule C.” That position morphed,
at trial, into “this is just a substantiation case.”
It is less than clear from the foregoing statements whether
petitioner’s argument rests on equitable estoppel, collateral
4 We note that respondent disputes the merits of
petitioner’s argument in respondent’s opposition to petitioner’s
motion to extend the time to file briefs. Respondent also
attaches to the opposition copies of three Forms 2848, Power of
Attorney and Declaration of Representative, and a copy of the
disputed Form 872, Consent to Extend the Time to Assess Tax,
which together reflect a proper extension of the statute.
Page: Previous 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011