- 7 -
S.G. because respondent’s employees provided erroneous advice to
petitioners concerning such deduction.
To constitute estoppel: (1) There must be false
representation or wrongful misleading silence; (2) the error must
originate 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) that person
must be adversely affected by the acts or statements of the
person against whom an estoppel is claimed. Underwood v.
Commissioner, 63 T.C. 468, 477-478 (1975), affd. 535 F.2d 309
(5th Cir. 1976); see Dixon v. United States, 381 U.S. 68 (1965).
Although it is not entirely clear in the record from whom
petitioners received such advice or when petitioners received
such advice,4 assuming arguendo that such advice was given,
respondent is not bound by the erroneous, incorrect, or
incomplete advice of his agents. Dixon v. United States, supra;
Auto. Club of Mich. v. Commissioner, 353 U.S. 180 (1957); McGuire
v. Commissioner, 77 T.C. 765, 779-780 (1981). Therefore,
respondent is not estopped from denying petitioners’ claimed
dependency exemption deduction for S.G. in the instant case.
E. Reasonable Litigation or Administrative Costs
Petitioners filed a petition for redetermination of a
deficiency under section 6213(a). In the petition, petitioners
4 We note that petitioners’ return was prepared by a
Volunteer Income Tax Assistance program presumably operated at a
military installation.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011