- 8 -
raise issues that were previously raised by taxpayers and
considered in any other administrative or judicial proceeding in
which the taxpayers meaningfully participated. See secs.
301.6320-1(e)(1), 301.6330-1(e)(1), Proced. & Admin. Regs. These
statutory and regulatory prohibitions are directly applicable to
the statute of limitations contention that petitioner previously
litigated in United States v. Magana, No. 95-CV-462-K (N.D.
Okla., Jan. 26, 2000), that he sought to raise at his collection
hearing, and that he now asks this Court to consider.2
Petitioner is precluded from raising the statute of
limitations contention.
New Issue
As indicated, petitioner for the first time in his petition
raised hardship as an objection to respondent’s lien filings.
In respondent’s motion for summary judgment, respondent
asserts that, under the abuse of discretion standard that applies
to our review of respondent’s lien filings, petitioner’s new
ground for opposing respondent’s lien filings (namely, hardship)
is not properly before this Court.
2 Also, based on collateral estoppel, petitioner would be
precluded from relitigating in this Court the statute of
limitations contention that was adjudicated in the District Court
proceeding. See Graham v. Commissioner, 76 T.C. 853, 856-857
(1981); see also Gass v. United States, 4 Fed. Appx. 565, 568
(10th Cir. 2001) (applying collateral estoppel to bar the
taxpayers’ claims previously litigated in the Tax Court).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011