Steve A. and Donna Wood Chamberlain - Page 11




                                       - 11 -                                         
          Edens v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1974-309, affd. 549 F.2d 798              
          (4th Cir. 1976).  Estoppel is generally inapplicable to prevent             
          the Commissioner from correcting a mistake of law.  Auto. Club of           
          Mich. v. Commissioner, 353 U.S. 180, 183 (1957).                            
               Accordingly, we cannot accept petitioners’ estoppel                    
          argument.  While petitioners may perceive unfairness in the                 
          results of respondent’s actions, they have presented no evidence            
          that suggests respondent made any misrepresentations or                     
          participated in any wrongful behavior.  Thus, respondent is not             
          estopped from disallowing petitioners’ dependency exemption and             
          child tax credit for the taxable year 2003.                                 
          D.   Actions of Third Party                                                 
               Lastly, petitioners claim that this Court should overturn              
          respondent’s disallowance of the dependency exemption and child             
          tax credit, because the entire matter is a result of Mrs.                   
          Norris’s claiming the dependency exemption on her 2003 joint                
          return.  Petitioners base this argument on Mrs. Norris’s 1995               
          Form 8332, wherein she released her claim to the exemption for              
          all future years.  They contend she knowingly violated this                 
          release as retaliation for differences that arose between her and           
          Mr. Chamberlain over custody of their two children.  While Mrs.             
          Norris’s refusal to set aside past grievances and abide by her              
          prior agreement may have contributed to the existence of the                
          instant dispute and petitioners’ unfortunate situation, this                







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

Last modified: November 10, 2007