- 8 -
civil tax liabilities or make ultimate findings of fact upon
which estoppel could be grounded.
The doctrine of res judicata is founded in the public policy
that litigation must end and that the result should bind those
who have contested the issue. Shaheen v. Commissioner, 62 T.C.
359, 363 (1974). Generally, res judicata applies to repetitious
suits involving the same cause of action. Commissioner v.
Sunnen, 333 U.S. 591, 597 (1948). The rule of res judicata
provides:
that when a court of competent jurisdiction has entered
a final judgment on the merits of a cause of action,
the parties to the suit and their privies are
thereafter bound “not only as to every matter which was
offered and received to sustain or defeat the claim or
demand, but as to any other admissible matter which
might have been offered for that purpose.” * * * [Id.
(quoting Cromwell v. County of Sac, 94 U.S. 351, 352
(1876)).]
The doctrine of res judicata applies only to issues determined by
a court of competent jurisdiction. Montana v. United States, 440
U.S. 147, 153 (1979). Therefore, if the District Court lacked
jurisdiction to or did not adjudicate petitioners' civil tax
liabilities for the years at issue, the principles of res
judicata do not apply.
The doctrine of collateral estoppel, or issue preclusion,
provides that once an issue of fact or law is “actually and
necessarily determined by a court of competent jurisdiction, that
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011