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