- 15 -
II. Decision Document
Additionally, respondent requests that if the Court
concludes that petitioner is entitled to a refund, the Court
include language in the decision document protecting respondent’s
right to challenge the validity of the carrybacks that resulted
in the subsequent tentative refund for 1985. Respondent’s
request arises from an unpublished opinion of the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Eighth Circuit that upheld a U.S. District
Court’s decision that the United States was barred under res
judicata principles from subsequently recovering a tentative
refund pursuant to section 6213(b)(3). See Bradley v. United
States, 106 F.3d 405 (8th Cir. 1997), affg. Civil No. 3-94-1514
(D. Minn., Jan. 30, 1996). Because petitioner does not object to
the language itself,17 the parties are directed to include the
language in a stipulation drafted by the parties to accompany the
decision document.
To the extent not herein discussed, we have considered the
parties’ other arguments and found them to be irrelevant or
without merit.
17 Petitioner objects only to the language being placed in
the decision document itself instead of in a stipulation to the
decision document.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011