Whitney v. United States

826 F.2d 896 (1987)

From our private database of 45,900+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Whitney v. United States

United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
826 F.2d 896 (1987)


William and Barbara Whitney (plaintiffs) were farmers who leased farmland. In 1975, the Whitneys formed a partnership with Melvin and Neil Bassetti and sold some of their farming operation to the partnership. The Bassettis each owned 49 percent of the partnership; the Whitneys owned the remaining 2 percent. The purchase price, which the partnership paid via a promissory note, included prepaid rent for the farmland for 1974 and 1975. The Whitneys deducted the prepaid rent on their 1974 and 1975 tax returns. The partnership also claimed a prepaid-rent deduction on its 1975 return. The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) disallowed the deductions. In response to accountant Edward Singleton’s request that the deductions be allowed, the IRS reiterated its position regarding deductibility but stated that the partnership could deduct some of the promissory note amount. The IRS also sent Singleton a form 870-AD (870-AD) (entitled “Offer of Waiver of Restrictions on Assessment and Collection of Deficiency in Tax and Acceptance of Overassessment”), which stated that upon the IRS’s acceptance of the form, the case could not be reopened in the absence of fraud, malfeasance, concealment or misrepresentation of material fact, a significant math error, or a specified carryback issue. The 870-AD also stated that most refund or credit claims would be barred. The Whitneys and Bassettis signed and returned 870-ADs to the IRS. Shortly after the IRS accepted the forms, the Ninth Circuit ruled that prepaid rent was deductible in the year it was paid. Relying on this ruling, the Whitneys sought a refund based on the deductibility of the 1974 prepaid rent. The IRS refused the refund claim on the ground that the 870-AD was a binding settlement agreement. The Whitneys filed suit in the district court against the United States (defendant), seeking a refund. Per the Whitneys (and Singleton), they did not enter into a package settlement with the IRS regarding the deductibility of prepaid rent and a portion of the promissory note. Rather, the 870-AD merely reflected the IRS’s view regarding the deductibility of prepaid rent. The district court granted summary judgment to the United States, ruling that the Whitneys were equitably estopped from obtaining a refund because the IRS detrimentally relied on the signed 870-AD by not seeking other assessments against the partnership and permitting the statute of limitations to lapse. The Whitneys appealed.

Rule of Law


Holding and Reasoning (Anderson, J.)

Dissent (Holcomb Hall, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 734,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

    Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

    Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee

Here's why 734,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 45,900 briefs, keyed to 984 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 734,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 45,900 briefs - keyed to 984 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership