- 10 -
The duty of consistency has been applied to prevent a
taxpayer from denying the accuracy of a previously reported basis
in property after the period of limitations has run on
assessments, see Cluck v. Commissioner, supra, Beltzer v. United
States, supra, and the Commissioner’s acquiescence has been
determined to exist when a taxpayer’s return is accepted as filed,
see Lefever v. Commissioner, supra, Beltzer v. United States,
supra. The Commissioner’s acquiescence does not require
examination of the taxpayer’s return. See Estate of Letts v.
Commissioner, 109 T.C. 290, 300-301 (1997), affd. per curiam
without published opinion 212 F.3d 600 (11th Cir. 2000).
Respondent argues that the facts in this case show that all
three of the criteria have been met and that Bentley Court should
be held to a duty of consistency. Bentley Court contends that the
duty of consistency is inapplicable, or if it is, it should be
applied to estop respondent from recapturing the credit. We agree
with respondent.
Bentley Court construes the following sequence of facts which
it believes should result in the application of a duty of
consistency against respondent: (1) Bentley Court reported the
low-income tax credits in 1990 to 1995, and respondent
“disallowed” those credits for all years by criminally prosecuting
Lewis; (2) because of the indictments against Lewis, respondent
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011