- 8 -
respondent, we view petitioners’ argument as one seeking to
equitably estop respondent from proceeding with collection
action. Accordingly, we consider whether the doctrine of
equitable estoppel should apply in this case.
Equitable estoppel is a judicial doctrine that precludes a
party from denying the party’s own representations which induced
another to act to his or her detriment. The doctrine of
equitable estoppel is applicable against the Commissioner, but it
is applied with utmost caution and restraint. Schuster v.
Commissioner, 312 F.2d 311, 317 (9th Cir. 1962), affg. 32 T.C.
998 (1959); Boulez v. Commissioner, 76 T.C. 209, 214-215 (1981),
affd. 810 F.2d 209 (D.C. Cir. 1987).
A taxpayer must establish the following elements before
equitable estoppel will be applied against the Government: (1) A
false representation or wrongful, misleading silence by the party
against whom the estoppel is claimed; (2) an error in a statement
of fact and not an opinion or statement of law; (3) the
taxpayer’s ignorance of the true facts; (4) reasonable reliance
on the acts or statements of the one against whom estoppel is
claimed; and (5) adverse effects suffered by the taxpayer from
the acts or statements of the one against whom estoppel is
claimed. Norfolk S. Corp v. Commissioner, 104 T.C. 13, 60
(1995), affd. 140 F.3d 240 (4th Cir. 1998). If any one of these
elements is missing, equitable estoppel does not apply.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011