- 6 - a petition with this Court, that EOCC and respondent settled the case pending in this Court, and that that settlement was re- flected in a decision entered by this Court. The District Court further recited the following facts in its order: (1) On December 31, 1985, petitioners purchased the Modoc property on behalf of EOCC; (2) on September 16, 1994, petitioners executed a "Bill of Sale" that purported to convey for $10 the Modoc property and all personal property located thereon to a new entity that petitioners established, called New EOCC (New EOCC); (3) sometime after September 1994, EOCC no longer existed, and all that remained of that entity was its unpaid tax liability; (4) on September 16, 1994, petitioners created the foundation; and (5) around October or November 1995, petitioners purported to transfer the Modoc property to the foundation on behalf of New EOCC for no consideration. With respect to the foundation's assertion of issue preclu- sion, the District Court held that nonmutual issue preclusion is not available against the United States and that there was no mutuality between the parties to the District Court case and the parties to the respective cases of petitioners and EOCC before this Court because the foundation was not a party to either of those latter cases. With respect to the foundation's assertion of judicial estoppel, the foundation argued that the United States wasPage: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011