- 5 - Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1991-407, affd. without published opinion 986 F.2d 1426 (10th Cir. 1993). Estoppel claims against the Government involving misstatements of law or faulty advice by Government agents are generally rejected on one of two grounds: either the claimant’s reliance on the agent’s misstatement is not sufficiently detrimental, or the misdeed itself is not sufficiently egregious. Burdett v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1992-576. The instant claim is lacking in both respects. Petitioner has failed to allege sufficient detrimental reliance on the alleged misstatement of respondent’s representative. Detrimental reliance is a primary element of an estoppel claim. Heckler v. Community Health Services, 467 U.S. 51 (1984). In Heckler, the Court held that the plaintiff, in relying on the agent’s advice, “lost no rights but merely was induced to do something which could be corrected at a later time.” Id. at 62. Here, petitioner lost no rights. His position would be the same as it is now had he not filed for bankruptcy; he would be liable for the tax assessed for 1997. In addition, it is generally held that a misstatement of law by a Government agent, by itself, is not sufficient to support a claim of estoppel. See Schweiker v. Hansen, 450 U.S. 785 (1981); see also Henry v. United States, 870 F.2d 634, 637 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (erroneous advice of IRS agent not sufficient misconduct to estop IRS from raising statute of limitations where advice causedPage: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011