- 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 was
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011