- 13 -
In both Campbell I and this case, the ultimate issue
presented is whether per capita distributions to petitioner from
the tribe arising out of the ownership and operation of a
gambling casino constitute gross income. In this case, the
parties stipulated that the primary issue in Campbell I was the
tax treatment of a per capita distribution to petitioner in 1992
from the tribe arising out of the ownership and operation of the
casino.
In Campbell I, we specifically stated that the primary issue
for decision was:
Whether per capita distributions to petitioner from the
* * * [tribe] arising out of the ownership and
operation of a gambling casino constitute gross income,
or whether such income is “derived directly” from land
owned by the * * * [tribe] and is excludable from
taxation pursuant to laws, treaties, or agreements
between Indian tribes and the United States Government
* * *. [Campbell v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1997-
502.]
The only differences between the issue in this case and the issue
in Campbell I are the dollar amounts and years in controversy.
The fact that the dollar amounts in controversy and the tax years
involved in this case are different from those in Campbell I,
however, does not preclude the application of collateral
estoppel. See Union Carbide Corp. v. Commissioner, 75 T.C. 220,
10(...continued)
the Court.
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011