17
tax and additions to tax of Stanko Packing; and, if so, the
amount of that liability. Petitioner does not dispute that
Stanko was a transferee of Stanko Packing.
Respondent contends that res judicata establishes that
Stanko was a transferee of Stanko Packing and the amount of
Stanko Packing’s liability for income tax, additions to tax, and
interest. Issues contested and decided in Stanko v.
Commissioner, supra, are identical to issues in this case. This
meets the first requirement for res judicata to apply.
2. The Parties in the Instant Case Are the Same as, or in
Privity With, the Parties in Stanko v. Commissioner
For res judicata to apply, the parties to the later
proceeding must be the same as, or in privity with, the parties
to the earlier proceeding. Commissioner v. Sunnen, supra at 597.
Respondent was a party in Stanko v. Commissioner, supra, and in
the instant case. Petitioner does not dispute that she is in
privity with Stanko. This meets the second requirement for res
judicata to apply.
3. The Decision in Stanko v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo.
1993-513, Was a Final Judgment on the Merits
For res judicata to apply, the earlier proceeding in Stanko
v. Commissioner, supra, must have resulted in a final judgment on
the merits. This Court entered a default judgment against Stanko
in that case. Petitioner does not dispute that Stanko's Tax
Court case is final. However, petitioner argues that res
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011