- 23 -
Respondent notes opinions of this Court and other courts
indicating that “If the origin of the underlying suit is a
personal vendetta against others, the related expenses are not
deductible.” Respondent contends that the California Court has,
in effect determined that petitioner’s filing of the Objections
is “the result of her personal vendetta”.
Respondent does not contend that the California Court’s
findings should be given collateral estoppel or other preclusive
effect. See Rule 39 of the Tax Court Rules of Practice and
Procedure. Petitioner does not contend that those findings
should be excluded. See generally 5 Weinstein, Weinstein’s
Federal Evidence sec. 803.28 [2] (2d Ed. 1997); 1 Weinstein, sec.
201.12 [3]. Thus, we are presented with a record that includes
the California Court’s findings and testimony before this Court
from petitioner and DiLeonardo. At trial, we explained our role
vis-a-vis the California Court’s ruling, as follows:
THE COURT: Mrs. DiLeonardo, as I had said before, we
took the recess. We’re not here to re-try those
proceedings. We’re not here to second-guess the wisdom of
what was done in those proceedings. We’re here only to
understand them to the extent necessary to decide whether or
not these expense are deductible.
The California Court reached the conclusions it stated in
the context of determining whether petitioner’s actions in the
proceeding before it justified punishment and, if so, then what
was the nature and extent of the justified punishment. Our
Page: Previous 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011