- 14 -
the parties to the suit and their privies are thereafter bound
not only as to every matter which was offered and received to
sustain or defeat the claim or demand, but as to any other
admissible matter which might have been offered for that purpose.
Id. at 597. But where the second action between the same parties
is upon a different cause or demand, the judgment in the prior
action has preclusive effect only as to those matters in issue or
points controverted, upon the determination of which the finding
or verdict was rendered. Id. at 597-598.
In Neaderland v. Commissioner, 424 F.2d 639, 641 (2d Cir.
1970), affg. 52 T.C. 532 (1969), the court stated: "When a civil
trial follows criminal proceedings which were based on the same
facts, a different cause of action is involved and the doctrine
of collateral estoppel rather than that of res judicata must be
considered." See also Helvering v. Mitchell, 303 U.S. 391
(1938); United States v. Barnette, 10 F.3d 1553, 1561 (11th Cir.
1994); Towe v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1992-689. The doctrine
of res judicata is therefore not applicable. For reasons already
explained, it is obvious that ascertaining petitioner's liability
for these additions to tax was not essential to the District
Court's judgment and the doctrine of collateral estoppel also has
no preclusive effect.
A. Section 6651(a)(1)--Failure To File
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