- 20 -
argument by stating that this Court “relied on evidence clearly
showing that during the relevant time period taxpayers retained
control over the funds. That they lost their investments many
years later is not relevant to their tax liabilities for the
years at issue.” Monahan v. Commissioner, 77 AFTR 2d 96-2340, at
96-2341, 96-2 USTC par. 50,386, at 85,272 (9th Cir. 1996).
Similarly, we believe that this Court in Monahan I
determined that, on December 26, 1991, petitioner controlled
Aldergrove partnership matters and benefited from and controlled
the funds in the Aldergrove account, upon consideration of
evidence relating to the relevant time period. The fact that
Mr. Bell may have exercised control over GML in 1993 is
insufficient to deny preclusive effect to this Court's finding on
the Aldergrove issue in Monahan I. Essentially, petitioners
question the propriety of that finding by claiming the existence
of new evidence, but fail to show that the controlling facts
underlying the Aldergrove issue have changed. This Court, in
Monahan I, was presented with evidence and argument relating to
Mr. Bell's purported control over GML, but, upon consideration of
that evidence and countervailing evidence, the Court rejected
petitioners' assertion. New evidence of Mr. Bell's purported
control over GML would be cumulative only and does not alter the
controlling facts underlying the Aldergrove issue during the
Page: Previous 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011