Forkston Fireworks Mfg. Co., Inc. - Page 10

          Court of Appeals deals with the question of whether the acquittal           
          of individuals in their previous mail fraud trial collaterally              
          estops the Government from litigating certain charges in these              
          individuals’ conspiracy case.  The Court of Appeals concluded               
          that the earlier acquittals could have been based on any of                 
          several possible determinations by the jury, that some of these             
          possible determinations were not issues in the second case, and             
          that thus the individuals had not shown the identity of issues              
          necessary to invoke collateral estoppel.  Crooks does not deal              
          with the question of whether a conviction of a shareholder can              
          collaterally estop the corporation, and so Crooks does not help             
          us as to the issue now before us.                                           
               In Ross v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1988-283, we held that             
          the individuals who were convicted in the earlier proceeding were           
          collaterally estopped to deny the acts of which they had been               
          convicted.  However, in Ross the collateral estoppel applied to             
          the later cases in which the convicted individuals were the                 
          taxpayers.  In the instant case, Anthony had been convicted, but            
          Forkston Fireworks Mfg. Co. is the taxpayer.  Ross is consistent            
          with our conclusion in Donnora v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1998-            
          187, but does not help us reach a conclusion in the instant case.           
               In Sparks Nugget, Inc. v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1970-74,            
          affd. 458 F.2d 631, 639 (9th Cir. 1972), a shareholder of a                 
          corporation was held to be collaterally estopped to deny the                
          correctness of an earlier case’s determination against the                  

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011