- 6 -
petition, could have contested the underlying liability.
Petitioner, however, did not petition the Court after the 2003
notice of determination was issued.
Petitioner also contends that he should have been allowed,
at the 2005 hearing, to contest the underlying liability because
respondent erroneously precluded him, at the 2002 hearing, from
doing so. In Heckler v. Cmty. Health Servs., 467 U.S. 51, 63
(1984), the Supreme Court stated that “those who deal with the
Government are expected to know the law and may not rely on the
conduct of Government agents contrary to law.” See Estate of
Emerson v. Commissioner, 67 T.C. 612, 617 (1977) (holding that
this Court will apply the doctrine of estoppel against the
Government with the “utmost caution and restraint”). Despite
respondent’s error, petitioner was entitled to petition this
Court, dispute the determination, and challenge the underlying
liability. Petitioner failed to do so and, thus, was precluded
from subsequently challenging the underlying liability.
Accordingly, respondent did not abuse his discretion and is not
estopped from proceeding with the proposed collection action.
Contentions we have not addressed are irrelevant, moot, or
meritless.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011