- 8 -
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.
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.
Even if respondent did not adjust petitioners’ prior tax
returns, respondent is not precluded from asserting a deficiency
with respect to the Social Security benefits for 2003. Each
taxable year stands on its own, and the Commissioner may
challenge in a succeeding year what was overlooked in previous
years. See, e.g., Rose v. Commissioner, 55 T.C. 28, 31-32
(1970); Blodgett v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2003-212, affd. 394
F.3d 1030 (8th Cir. 2005). Petitioners have not shown that they
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011