- 4 -
petitioner’s memory of the prior Tax Court proceeding vanished
completely, and he questioned the authenticity of the decision
document though, incongruously, not his signature. But his
primary argument was that the tax for 1997 was discharged in
bankruptcy or should be so treated because, he alleged, an
Internal Revenue Service (IRS) representative advised him that
filing for bankruptcy would relieve him of the tax. He argues
that the IRS representative misled him.
Because petitioner’s income tax liability was assessed
within 240 days before the date of the filing of the bankruptcy
petition, it was not dischargeable. See 11 U.S.C. secs.
523(a)(1)(A), 507(a)(8)(A)(ii) (2000). As petitioner’s tax debt
is of a kind specified in 11 U.S.C. section 523(a)(1)(A), it is
not discharged whether or not a proof of claim is filed or
allowed. 11 U.S.C. 523(a)(1)(A)(2000); Swanson v. Commissioner,
121 T.C. 111, 128 (2003). Petitioner’s discharge argument is
without merit.
Petitioner’s argument that he was misled by an IRS
representative into filing for bankruptcy is essentially one of
estoppel. This Court has held that it will apply the doctrine of
equitable estoppel against the Government with the utmost caution
and restraint. Kronish v. Commissioner, 90 T.C. 684, 695 (1988)
(citing Boulez v. Commissioner, 76 T.C. 209, 214-215 (1981),
affd. 810 F.2d 209 (D.C. Cir. 1987)); see Cavanaugh v.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011