Steve A. and Donna Wood Chamberlain - Page 10




                                       - 10 -                                         
          to notify them of the impropriety of these prior returns should             
          prevent the disallowance of the deduction and credit, because it            
          denied them the opportunity to retrieve a copy of the 1995 Form             
          8332 and correct the discrepancy.                                           
               Once again, while we sympathize with petitioners’ position,            
          the law is clear.  The Commissioner’s allowance of a deduction on           
          a Federal income tax return for 1 year does not preclude him from           
          challenging a similar item in a return for a later year.  S.                
          Chester Tube Co. v. Commissioner, 14 T.C. 1229, 1235 (1950);                
          Lozoff v. United States, 266 F. Supp. 966, 971 (E.D. Wis. 1967),            
          affd. 392 F.2d 875 (7th Cir. 1968).  This holds true even where             
          the Commissioner has accepted a taxpayer’s prior returns without            
          examining them.  Rountree v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1968-165.             
          Moreover, the Commissioner has no affirmative duty to notify                
          taxpayers of noncompliance with statutory requirements.  Sommer             
          v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1983-196.                                       
               Furthermore, application of the estoppel doctrine in tax               
          cases must be rare, as “the policy in favor of an efficient                 
          collection of the public revenue outweighs the policy of the                
          estoppel doctrine in its usual and customary context.”  Nadler v.           
          Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1992-383, affd. without published                  
          opinion 993 F.2d 1533 (2d Cir. 1993).  Equitable estoppel is                
          available as a defense only where the taxpayer can show that the            
          Commissioner’s representatives have committed fraud or unfair               
          conduct that the taxpayer relied on to his or her detriment.                





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  Next 

Last modified: November 10, 2007