Estate of Mary D. Maggos - Page 18

                                       - 18 -                                         
          this reason, we refuse to allow petitioner to assert that                   
          decedent had less than the full beneficial ownership of the                 
          redeemed shares.                                                            
               The doctrine of judicial estoppel also supports our refusal            
          to allow petitioner to raise the issue of decedent’s ownership in           
          the redeemed stock.  While the contours of the doctrine of                  
          judicial estoppel are not yet fully settled,13 we have held that            
          the doctrine of judicial estoppel is available in the Tax Court.            
          See Huddleston v. Commissioner, 100 T.C. 17 (1993).                         
               In Helfand v. Gerson, 105 F.3d 530, 534 (9th Cir. 1997), the           
          Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit summarized the doctrine,             
                    “Judicial estoppel, sometimes also known as the                   
               doctrine of preclusion of inconsistent positions,                      
               precludes a party from gaining an advantage by taking                  
               one position, and then seeking a second advantage by                   
               taking an incompatible position.”  Rissetto v. Plumbers                
               and Steamfitters Local 343, 94 F.3d 597, 600 (9th Cir.                 
               1996).  It is an equitable doctrine intended to protect                
               the integrity of the judicial process by preventing a                  
               litigant from “playing fast and loose with the courts.”                
               Russell v. Rolfs, 893 F.2d 1033, 1037 (9th Cir.1990),                  
               (quoting Rockwell Int’l Corp. v. Hanford Atomic Metal                  
               Trades Council, 851 F.2d 1208, 1210 (9th Cir.1988)),                   

               13   The doctrine of judicial estoppel is a vintage                    
               doctrine whose popularity varies from court to court                   
               nearly as greatly as its contours do.  And yet, it is                  
               gaining renewed currency.  The Ninth Circuit Court of                  
               Appeals is one of the courts to have infused it with                   
               renewed life and vigor.  That court applied judicial                   
               estoppel most recently to an estate planning case in                   
               Hawaii. * * *  [Sumner v. Michelin N. Am., Inc., 966 F.                
               Supp. 1567, 1571 (M.D. Ala. 1997) (referring to Helfand                
               v. Gerson, 105 F.3d 530 (9th Cir. 1997)).]                             

Page:  Previous  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011