-12- petitioner’s interest in the previous litigation was identical to Anthony’s. The controlling case law clearly holds that a corporation is not collaterally estopped by a prior adjudication involving a shareholder in these circumstances. The corporation is entitled to be heard on the question of whether any part of its underpayment was due to fraud. It is clear that, as a matter of law, respondent is not entitled to rely on the doctrine of collateral estoppel to prove that petitioner (1) understated its income for 1990 and (2) such understatement was due to negligence. We conclude that respondent has not shown that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact with respect to petitioner. We hold that respondent’s motion for partial summary judgment is denied. An appropriate order denying respondent’s motion for summary judgment will be issued.Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Last modified: May 25, 2011