- 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,
stating:
“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 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011