- 22 -
regard to the ultimate matter in dispute, but rather
only that a particular position or argument asserted by
the party in the prior proceeding was accepted by the
court. [Id. at 26; citations omitted.]
See also Edwards v. Aetna Life Ins. Co., supra at 599. In
Huddleston v. Commissioner, supra at 29, we applied judicial
estoppel to prevent the taxpayer from denying that he had
fiduciary authority to act on behalf of a decedent's estate.
This position was completely contradictory to the position that
the taxpayer had taken, and this Court had accepted, in a prior
case.
Judicial estoppel must be applied with caution in order "to
avoid impinging on the truth-seeking function of the court
because the doctrine precludes a contradictory position without
examining the truth of either statement." Teledyne Indus., Inc.
v. NLRB, supra at 1218; see also Allen v. Zurich Ins. Co., supra
at 1166; Fazi v. Commissioner, 105 T.C. 436, 445-446 (1995). As
a result, before applying judicial estoppel, courts not only
require that a party have asserted an inconsistent position in an
earlier proceeding, but also that the court in the earlier
proceeding accepted that position. United States v. C.I.T.
Constr., Inc., 944 F.2d 253, 258-259 (5th Cir. 1991); Edwards v.
Aetna Life Ins. Co., supra at 599; Huddleston v. Commissioner,
Page: Previous 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011