- 5 -
Court, thus vesting the Court with jurisdiction over the case.
See Brown v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1996-100.
Issue 1. Period of Limitations
Respondent determined a deficiency in petitioner's income
tax of $44,086 for 1990. Petitioner asserts that respondent is
precluded from assessing this deficiency by the theory of
judicial estoppel, or in the alternative, by the expiration of
the period of limitations.
We are not persuaded by petitioner's arguments. The
doctrine of judicial estoppel, petitioner argues, operates to
preclude a party from asserting a position in legal proceedings
which is contrary to a position it has already asserted in
another proceeding. See Teledyne Indus., Inc. v. NLRB, 911 F.2d
1214, 1217-1220 (6th Cir. 1990).
Petitioner maintains that in proceedings before the Court of
Federal Claims the Government conceded that the statute of
limitations barred any assessment of a deficiency for 1990.
Petitioner claims that the Government asserted this as a basis
for having his suit before the Court of Federal Claims dismissed,
and is now prohibited from asserting a contrary position before
the Court.
At trial, respondent denied that the Government made such a
concession during the proceedings before the Court of Federal
Claims. In support of his contention, petitioner introduced at
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011