- 29 -
agreement under Florida law. Courts must invoke judicial
estoppel with caution and only after it is clear that an earlier
court accepted the position in question.12 See Fazi v.
Commissioner, 105 T.C. at 445-446. Consequently, we must make
our own independent determination as to whether the payments in
question constitute alimony or a property settlement.
2. Alimony/Property Settlement
The question we must decide is whether the $2,500 per month
payments by John to Faye were made "because of the family or
marital relationship in recognition of the general obligation to
support". Sec. 1.71-1(b)(4), Income Tax Regs. The requirement
that the payments be made in discharge of a legal obligation
imposed because of the family or marital relationship means that
the payments must be in the nature of support rather than a
12For similar reasons, we also reject Faye's remaining
arguments that John should be precluded from asserting that the
payments at issue represent alimony. Res judicata, for instance,
encompasses both claim and issue preclusion. See Hemmings v.
Commissioner, 104 T.C. 221, 231 (1995). The doctrine of claim
preclusion prevents a party from asserting a claim that has been,
or should have been, the subject of prior litigation. Id. Issue
preclusion prevents a party from relitigating an issue that the
party previously litigated unsuccessfully in a different action.
Blanton v. Commissioner, 94 T.C. 491, 494-495 (1990). Since we
have found that the Florida courts did not make a determination
as to whether the Stipulation and Final Judgment represented a
property settlement agreement, res judicata is inapplicable. The
doctrine of the law of the case is similarly inapplicable in this
context. See Quern v. Jordan, 440 U.S. 332, 347 n.18 (1979)
("The doctrine of law of the case comes into play only with
respect to issues previously determined.").
Page: Previous 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011