- 20 -
Commissioner, 74 T.C. 743, 761 (1980), affd. 673 F.2d 784 (5th
Cir. 1982). It is to be applied against the Commissioner only
with utmost caution and restraint. E.g., Hofstetter v.
Commissioner, 98 T.C. 695, 700 (1992). The essential elements of
estoppel are: (1) There must be a false representation or
wrongful misleading silence; (2) the error must be in a statement
of fact and not in an opinion or a statement of law; (3) the
person claiming the benefits of estoppel must be ignorant of the
true facts; and (4) he must be adversely affected by the acts or
statements of the person against whom estoppel is claimed. E.g.,
Estate of Emerson v. Commissioner, 67 T.C. 612, 617-618 (1977);
see also Tefel v. Reno, 180 F.3d 1286, 1302 (11th Cir. 1999).
“Where an allegation of estoppel raises factual questions on
which reasonable minds might disagree, the questions must be
resolved at trial by the trier of fact. * * * However, where
the facts are not in dispute or are beyond dispute, the existence
of estoppel is a question of law.” J.C. Wyckoff & Associates v.
Standard Fire Ins. Co., 936 F.2d 1474, 1493 (6th Cir. 1991). See
generally 28 Am. Jur. 2d, Estoppel and Waiver, sec. 188 (2000).
Since there is no dispute here as to the relevant facts, we treat
petitioner’s claim of estoppel as raising only a question of law,
which we may dispose of with only brief discussion.
Respondent made no false statement to petitioner, nor did
respondent’s silence (if we can call his failure to petition
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