- 9 -
interest in Mr. Kelley’s retirement benefits.7 Suffice it to say
that the “mere acceptance or acquiescence in returns filed by a
taxpayer in previous years creates no estoppel against the
Commissioner nor does the overlooking of an error in a return
upon audit create any such estoppel.” Mora v. Commissioner, T.C.
Memo. 1972-123; see Dixon v. United States, 381 U.S. 68, 72-73
(1965); Automobile Club of Mich. v. Commissioner, 353 U.S. 180,
183-184 (1957); McGuire v. Commissioner, 77 T.C. 765, 779-780
(1981). In other words, even though the Commissioner may have
overlooked or accepted the tax treatment of a certain item on a
taxpayer’s returns for many previous years, the Commissioner is
not precluded from correcting that error on the taxpayer’s return
for a subsequent year. Garrison v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo.
1994-200 (and cases cited therein), affd. without published
opinion 67 F.3d 299 (6th Cir. 1995).
In conclusion, we hold for respondent on the disputed issue.
Reviewed and adopted as the report of the Small Tax Case
Division.
7 The record does not disclose what prompted respondent’s
Service Centers to issue the “no change” letters. Perhaps the
Service Centers acted solely on the basis of the Superior Court’s
July 1986 order and without knowledge of the December 1992 QDRO.
However, we need not speculate on this matter because, as
discussed infra in the text, respondent is not estopped from
correcting an error.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011