- 13 -
be viewed in the light most favorable to the party opposing the
motion; and (c) the party opposing the motion cannot rest upon
mere allegations or denials, but must set forth specific facts
showing there is a genuine issue for trial. Brotman v.
Commissioner, 105 T.C. 141 (1995). Summary judgment is available
to establish the collateral estoppel defense, as respondent seeks
to do herein. Id.
Under the doctrine of collateral estoppel, "once an issue is
actually and necessarily determined by a court of competent
jurisdiction, that determination is conclusive in subsequent
suits based on a different cause of action involving a party to
the prior litigation." Montana v. United States, 440 U.S. 147,
153 (1979); Brotman v. Commissioner, supra. Collateral estoppel
may apply to matters of fact, matters of law, or to mixed matters
of law and fact. Meier v. Commissioner, 91 T.C. 273, 283 (1988).
With respect to petitioner's convictions for violation of
the Travel Act, and conspiracy to violate the Travel Act,
respondent argues that petitioner is collaterally estopped to
deny his participation in the bribery scheme. Respondent
acknowledges that because the actual receipt of a pecuniary
benefit as a bribe was not an essential element of petitioner's
convictions for violation of the Travel Act and conspiracy to
violate the Travel Act, petitioner is not collaterally estopped
to deny receipt of the amounts determined in the notice of
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011