9
not collaterally estopped from litigating the issue presented for
decision in this case. See also Wolff v. Commissioner, T.C.
Memo. 1994-196.
In the alternative, petitioners request that we take
judicial notice of our decision in Bales v. Commissioner, supra.
Rule 201 of the Federal Rules of Evidence, provides in part:
(a) Scope of rule. This rule governs only judicial notice
of adjudicative facts.
(b) Kinds of facts. A judicially noticed fact must be one
not subject to reasonable dispute in that it is either (1)
generally known within the territorial jurisdiction of the
trial court or (2) capable of accurate and ready
determination by resort to sources whose accuracy cannot
reasonably be questioned.
We may take judicial notice of opinions of this Court, Estate of
Reis v. Commissioner, 87 T.C. 1016, 1027 (1986), and do so in
this case. However, "The mere fact that a court in one opinion
makes findings of fact is not a basis for the same or another
court in another proceeding to take judicial notice of those
findings and deem them to be indisputably established for
purposes of the pending litigation." Id. at 1028-1029. As we
have noted, transactions involving Washoe Ranches #7 LTD. were
not before the Court in Bales. The findings of facts in Bales v.
Commissioner, supra, are not conclusive here.
Respondent's determination is presumed to be correct, and
petitioners have the burden of proving entitlement to the claimed
credit. Rule 142(a); Welch v. Helvering, 290 U.S. 111 (1933).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011