M.J. Wood Associates, Inc. - Page 10

                                                - 10 -                                                  

            criminal charges, and consequently no specific income tax                                   
            liabilities needed to be determined.  See Hickman v.                                        
            Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1997-566 (adjudication of a taxpayer’s                             
            liability was not essential to a conviction under section 7203;                             
            therefore, a prerequisite to the application of collateral                                  
            estoppel was not satisfied).                                                                
                  As discussed above, under section 7442, this Court acquired                           
            exclusive jurisdiction to adjudicate petitioners’ civil tax                                 
            liabilities for the years that were petitioned.  More                                       
            importantly, the resolution of petitioners’ civil tax liabilities                           
            was not essential to the District Court’s judgment, and the                                 
            amounts of petitioners' civil tax liabilities were not                                      
            specifically litigated or adjudicated in the criminal proceeding.                           
            Because the District Court did not decide the specific amounts of                           
            petitioners' civil tax liabilities, neither res judicata nor                                
            collateral estoppel applies.                                                                
                  Petitioners also argue that the Government cannot be                                  
            permitted to recover twice on the same tax liability.  This Court                           
            has jurisdiction to determine whether or not a deficiency or                                
            overpayment exists.  Should it ultimately be determined that                                
            petitioners have made payments in excess of any redetermined tax                            
            liability, this Court has jurisdiction to decide the correct                                
            amount of any overpayment in the taxable years before the Court.                            

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

Last modified: May 25, 2011