Joseph B. Campbell - Page 10

                                       - 10 -                                         
          Per Capita Distributions                                                    
               Respondent argues that the doctrine of collateral estoppel             
          precludes petitioner from relitigating the issue of whether                 
          petitioner’s per capita distributions from the tribe are taxable            
          as ordinary income.  Respondent asserts that the legal questions            
          raised in Campbell I with respect to this issue are identical to            
          those raised by petitioner in this case, and the only differences           
          are the years and the amounts of tax due.  Respondent contends              
          there has been no change in the controlling facts or the                    
          applicable law since the resolution of Campbell I.  Petitioner,             
          on the other hand, argues that the primary issues and legal                 
          arguments raised in this case differ significantly from those               
          raised in Campbell I.                                                       
               The doctrine of collateral estoppel may be applied in                  
          Federal income tax cases.  See United States v. International               
          Bldg. Co., 345 U.S. 502, 505 (1953); Commissioner v. Sunnen, 333            
          U.S. 591, 598 (1948).  “Under collateral estoppel, once an issue            
          of fact or law is actually and necessarily determined by a court            
          of competent jurisdiction, that determination is conclusive in              
          subsequent suits based on a different cause of action involving a           
          party to the prior litigation.”9  Montana v. United States, 440             

               9Under the principles of res judicata, on the other hand, “a           
          judgment on the merits in a prior suit bars a second suit                   

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011