- 4 -
due from petitioner may be assessed at any time under section
6501(c)(1). Petitioner asserts that the doctrine of collateral
estoppel does not apply because: (1) the issues in the criminal
case are not the same as those in the instant case; and (2) the
complexity and number of counts in the indictment are special
circumstances that warrant an exception to the normal rules of
issue preclusion. Petitioner also maintains that the 3-year
limitation period under section 6501(a) bars the assessment and
collection of the deficiencies and penalties for 1990, 1991, and
1992.
The Supreme Court in Montana v. United States, 440 U.S. 147,
155 (1979), refined the parameters of applying collateral
estoppel by articulating a three-prong test: (1) Whether the
issues presented in the subsequent litigation are in substance
the same as those in the first case; (2) whether controlling
facts or legal principles have changed significantly since the
first judgment; and (3) whether special circumstances warrant an
exception to the normal rules of preclusion. See Meier v.
Commissioner, 91 T.C. 273, 282-286 (1988).
Petitioner argues that the complexity and number of counts
in the indictment are special circumstances that warrant an
exception to the rules of issue preclusion. With respect to the
special circumstances exception, the Supreme Court stated:
"Redetermination of issues is warranted if there is reason to
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011