- 15 -
decedent’s death, was the “true owner” of the property.
Petitioner avers no other facts that would support the
assignments of error. Therefore, if petitioner is estopped from
claiming that, prior to decedent’s death, decedent had sold or
otherwise transferred the property to Ms. Williams, petitioner
has raised no factual issue with respect to the assignments of
error, and we may resolve those assignments as a matter of law.
II. The Doctrine of Issue Preclusion
The doctrine of issue preclusion, or collateral estoppel,
provides that, 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.” Montana v. United States, 440 U.S. 147, 153 (1979)
(citing Parklane Hosiery Co. v. Shore, 439 U.S. 322, 326 n.5
(1979)). Issue preclusion is a judicially created equitable
doctrine the purposes of which are to protect parties from
unnecessary and redundant litigation, to conserve judicial
resources, and to foster certainty in and reliance on judicial
action. See, e.g., id. at 153-154; United States v. ITT
Rayonier, Inc.,
627 F.2d 996, 1000 (9th Cir. 1980). In Peck v. Commissioner, 90
T.C. 162, 166-167 (1988), affd. 904 F.2d 525 (9th Cir. 1990), we
set forth the following five conditions that must be satisfied
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011