- 19 -
obligated to defend against the forfeiture order, and he has
failed to show the elements necessary to raise successfully
equitable estoppel as a defense to respondent’s efforts to
collect the 1996 tax liability.
Title 21, U.S.C. sec. 853(n)(2), provides that any person,
“other than the defendant,” asserting a legal interest in
property that has been ordered forfeited “may” petition the
District Court for a hearing to adjudicate the validity of his
alleged interest in the property. A third party, therefore, has
a right, not a duty, to petition the District Court,8 and it is
his interest, not the defendant’s, that is to be determined.
Indeed, the defendant has no interest in the forfeited property
and is prohibited even from petitioning the court. Petitioner
has failed to suggest any other statutory provision that would
obligate respondent to defend against the forfeiture order and
makes no claim that respondent was under a contractual obligation
to do so. Therefore, we find that respondent had no duty to
defend against the forfeiture order.
Equitable estoppel is a judicial doctrine that precludes a
party from denying that party’s own acts or representations that
induce another to act to his or her detriment. E.g., Graff v.
8 Nor has the Internal Revenue Service a duty to collect a
tax assessment from specific property in which it has a lien
rather than permitting the property to be forfeited. Raulerson
v. United States, 786 F.2d 1090, 1092-1093 (11th Cir. 1986).
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011