George A. and Marysue Coward - Page 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