- 13 -
The doctrine of estoppel is not applicable unless the party
relying on it establishes all of the following elements at a
minimum: (1) A false representation or wrongful, misleading
silence by the party against whom estoppel is to be invoked; (2)
an error in a statement of fact and not an opinion or statement
of law; (3) ignorance of the true facts; (4) the party claiming
estoppel must be adversely affected by the acts or statements of
the person against whom an estoppel is claimed; and (5) detriment
suffered by the party claiming estoppel because of his or her
adversary’s false representation or wrongful, misleading silence.
Norfolk S. Corp. v. Commissioner, 104 T.C. 13, 60 (1995), affd.
140 F.3d 240 (4th Cir. 1998); Estate of Emerson v. Commissioner,
67 T.C. 612, 617-618 (1977); Megibow v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo.
2004-41; see also Lignos v. United States, 439 F.2d 1365, 1368
(2d Cir. 1971).
The doctrine of equitable estoppel was raised for the first
time by respondent on brief.13 Initially, respondent conceded
that qualified higher education expenses include transportation
costs. In respondent’s trial memorandum, respondent relied on
section 1.221-1(e)(2)(i), Income Tax Regs., for the proposition
13 Although the Court offered petitioners the opportunity
to file a response to respondent’s brief, petitioners did not do
so.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011