- 18 -
1997, and 1998 returns, respondent is not barred by the doctrine
of laches from asserting deficiencies for the 1999 and 2000 years
in issue.
B. Doctrine of Equitable Estoppel
Equitable estoppel is a judicial doctrine that precludes a
party from denying his or her own acts or representations which
induced another to act to his or her detriment. Hofstetter v.
Commissioner, 98 T.C. 695, 700 (1992); Graff v. Commissioner, 74
T.C. 743, 761 (1980), affd. 673 F.2d 784 (5th Cir. 1982); Megibow
v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2004-41. The Supreme Court has held
that the Government may not be estopped “on the same terms as any
other litigant.” OPM v. Richmond, 496 U.S. 414, 419 (1990);
Heckler v. Cmty. Health Servs., 467 U.S. 51, 60 (1984).
Equitable estoppel is applied “against the Government with utmost
caution and restraint”. Schuster v. Commissioner, 312 F.2d 311,
317 (9th Cir. 1962), affg. 32 T.C. 998 (1959). Any successful
attempt to invoke equitable estoppel against the Commissioner
must outweigh the policy consideration in favor of “an efficient
collection of the public revenue”. Id.
In order to invoke the doctrine of equitable estoppel
against the United States, petitioners must satisfy all the
traditional elements: (1) A false representation or wrongful,
misleading silence by the party against whom estoppel is to be
invoked; (2) an error in a statement of fact and not an opinion
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011