- 14 -
or all the elements of a technical estoppel. It arises
rather from the duty of disclosure which the law puts on
the taxpayer, along with the duty of handling his
accounting so it will fairly subject his income to
taxation.” [Interlochen Co. v. Commissioner, 232 F.2d
873, 878 (4th Cir. 1956), affg. 24 T.C. 1000 (1955)
(quoting Wichita Coca Cola Bottling Co. v. United
States, 152 F.2d 6, 8 (5th Cir. 1945))].
Bentley Court represented on its 1990 through 1992 returns
that it qualified for low-income housing credits. It generally
claimed compliance with section 42 and did not provide its
reasoning for claiming the credit. It is obvious from the record
we consider that the criminal matter had to do with
misrepresentations and/or concealment of facts on Bentley Court’s
behalf by Lewis. Accordingly, Bentley Court’s “mistake of law”
argument has no basis in this record and is not worthy of further
consideration. See Interlochen Co. v. Commissioner, supra.
Accordingly, we reject Bentley Court’s alternative argument.
Bentley Court has conceded that it does not qualify for low-
income housing credits for 1993. Accordingly, the apartment
building’s qualified basis was thus zero at the end of 1993. In
addition, Bentley Court is estopped to deny that the 1992 yearend
qualified basis was less than $11,537,221. Because the qualified
basis at the end of 1993 was less than the qualified basis at the
end of 1992, Bentley Court is subject to recapture in 1993. See
sec. 42(j).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011