- 7 -
OPINION
Petitioner concedes that he had gross income in the amounts
determined by respondent for the years in issue. Petitioner
alleges, however, that the doctrines of collateral estoppel and
res judicata preclude respondent from seeking deficiencies in
excess of those found by the District Court and additions in tax.
I. Collateral Estoppel and Respondent's Deficiency Determination
The primary issue in this case is whether the doctrine of
collateral estoppel precludes respondent from asserting tax
deficiencies for the 1986 through 1988 tax years. Petitioner
argues that the District Court's order of restitution is
tantamount to a final determination of petitioner's tax
liabilities. Thereby, respondent is precluded from determining
tax liabilities in excess of those "determined" by the District
Court. What is at stake for petitioner is the payment of an
additional $11,648 in income taxes.
A. Collateral Estoppel
Respondent argues that the doctrine of collateral estoppel
does not apply for the tax years 1986 through 1988 because the
District Court did not decide the issue of petitioner's exact
income tax liabilities. Thereby, respondent is not precluded
from determining and assessing petitioner's income tax
liabilities. Respondent sets forth two arguments in support of
this position. First, the indictment did not charge petitioner
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011