- 7 -
use of the doctrine of collateral estoppel to establish fraud
will not preclude the taxpayer from litigating the amounts of the
deficiencies at issue in this case. See, e.g., Fitzpatrick v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1995-548.
Petitioner challenges whether the elements required for
application of the doctrine of collateral estoppel have been met.
First, petitioner claims that the issues in the criminal
proceeding for tax evasion and the subsequent proceeding for
civil tax fraud are not identical. Second, petitioner claims
that the issues material to liability for civil tax fraud were
not actually litigated or actually decided in the criminal
proceeding. As discussed above, it is well settled that a
conviction under section 7201 necessarily involves the ultimate
factual determinations necessary for a finding of fraud under
section 6653(b). Amos v. Commissioner, supra at 54-56.
Therefore, the foregoing arguments of petitioner are without
merit.
Petitioner also argues that an exception to collateral
estoppel should apply because he did not have a full and fair
opportunity to litigate in the prior proceeding, in that
witnesses necessary to his defense did not appear and his counsel
was ineffective. These alleged deficiencies are not of the
character to warrant an exception to the application of
collateral estoppel. See Klein v. Commissioner, 880 F.2d 260
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011