- 10 -
OPINION
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
(continued...)
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