- 44 -
f. No Special Circumstances
The final element of collateral estoppel is present because
petitioners do not contend nor do we find that there are special
circumstances present that would warrant not applying the normal
rules of preclusion. Montana v. United States, supra; Meier v.
Commissioner, supra at 291-292.
3. Lack of Mutuality
Petitioners point out that there is no mutuality here
because respondent would not be collaterally estopped from
proceeding against petitioner even if respondent had lost the
bankruptcy case. Petitioners contend that collateral estoppel
should not apply because there is no mutuality. Gammill v.
Commissioner, 62 T.C. at 614-615; Divine v. Commissioner, 59 T.C.
152, 156 (1972), affd. on this issue, revd. and remanded in part
500 F.2d 1041 (2d Cir. 1974). Under the doctrine of mutuality,
neither party may use a prior judgment to estop the other unless
the judgment binds both parties. Meier v. Commissioner, supra at
283.
Other than arguing that mutuality would not apply because
the taxpayer here is not the same as that in In re Resyn Corp, 81
USTC par. 9808 (Bankr. D.N.J. 1981) (which we discussed in
section B-2-c, above), petitioners made no convincing argument
that mutuality would not apply here. Further, mutuality is no
longer a requirement for applying collateral estoppel. Parklane
Hosiery v. Shore, 439 U.S. 322 (1979); Meier v. Commissioner,
Page: Previous 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011