- 8 -
with any specific tax liability amount. Instead, it only charged
petitioner with receiving specific amounts of income, amounts
which petitioner does not dispute. Second, the District Court's
order for restitution was based upon the testimony of a
Government witness, whose testimony was incidental to the issue
of the specific amounts of income received by petitioner.
Respondent contends that petitioner's tax liability was not
actually litigated and decided, and that the evidence of
petitioner's tax liability was only introduced for the purpose of
proving that petitioner was required to file Federal income tax
returns.
Petitioner argues that the District Court determined his
income tax liabilities for 1986 through 1988, and that respondent
is collaterally estopped from relitigating petitioner's tax
liability for those years. In support, petitioner contends that
his tax liability was actually determined, actually litigated,
and essential to the judgment of the criminal conviction and
restitution order. As a result of the District Court's judgment,
petitioner contends that his tax liability for 1986 through 1988
is limited to the $36,276 amount ordered by the District Court.
"Collateral estoppel and the related doctrine of res
judicata have the dual purpose of protecting litigants from the
burden of relitigating an identical issue and of promoting
judicial economy by preventing unnecessary or redundant
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011