- 16 -
on the merits, was affirmed on appeal and is now final. See
Kunkes v. United States, 78 F.3d 1549, 1550 n.2 (Fed. Cir. 1996);
Hubicki v. ACF Indus., Inc., 484 F.2d 519, 524 (3d Cir. 1973).
Petitioners nevertheless contend that respondent cannot rely
on the doctrine of res judicata because the question whether
petitioners “participated meaningfully” in the District Court
collection action, within the meaning of section 6015(g)(2),
presents a material issue of fact. We note a subtle divergence
in petitioners’ positions on this point. Specifically, while
petitioner Scott P. Thurner contends in very general terms that
respondent failed to satisfy his burden of proving that there is
no dispute as to a material fact, petitioner Yvonne E. Thurner
goes a step further and alleges that she did not participate
meaningfully in the District Court collection action inasmuch as
she simply complied with her husband’s instructions to sign the
pleadings and various other documents that were filed with the
District Court.
The record clearly establishes that petitioner Scott P.
Thurner participated meaningfully in the District Court
collection action. The documents that petitioners filed in the
District Court collection action were signed by both petitioners
and amply demonstrate that petitioner Scott P. Thurner was fully
engaged in that proceeding. In addition, petitioner Scott P.
Thurner acknowledged in the affidavit attached to his Objection
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011