- 7 -
taxable years 1996 through 2001, petitioners claimed--and
respondent did not disallow--a dependency exemption deduction for
each child. Petitioner argues, on the basis of his alleged
conversation with the IRS employee, that respondent is estopped
from disallowing the claimed deductions.
Equitable estoppel is a judicial doctrine that precludes a
party from denying his own acts or representations which induced
another to act to his detriment. Hofstetter v. Commissioner, 98
T.C. 695, 700 (1992). It is well settled, however, that the
Commissioner cannot be estopped from correcting a mistake of law,
even where a taxpayer may have relied to his detriment on that
mistake. Norfolk S. Corp. v. Commissioner, 104 T.C. 13, 59-60
(1995), affd. 140 F.3d 240 (4th Cir. 1998). An exception exists
only in the rare case where a taxpayer can prove he or she would
suffer an unconscionable injury because of that reliance. Id.
The following conditions must be satisfied before equitable
estoppel will be applied against the Government: (1) A false
representation or wrongful, misleading silence by the party
against whom the opposing party seeks to invoke the doctrine; (2)
an error in a statement of fact and not in an opinion or
statement of law; (3) ignorance of the true facts; (4) reasonable
reliance on the acts or statements of the one against whom
estoppel is claimed; and (5) adverse effects of the acts or
statements of the one against whom estoppel is claimed. Id.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011