- 3 -
Respondent moves the Court to adjudicate this case summarily
under Rule 121,1 asserting that petitioner is collaterally
estopped from proving that it is entitled to such a loss.
Respondent bases his motion on the pleadings and the parties’
stipulation of facts and accompanying exhibits. Respondent
supports his motion with a memorandum of law.
Petitioner objects to respondent’s motion. Petitioner
asserts that collateral estoppel does not apply in this case.
Petitioner embodied its objection in a brief that it filed with
the Court in response to respondent’s motion.
We agree with respondent that petitioner is collaterally
estopped from claiming the referenced theft loss. We set forth
our reasoning below.
Background
The parties have stipulated facts and exhibits for purposes
of this case. We have derived most of the facts set forth in
this background section from that stipulation of facts and those
accompanying exhibits. We have derived the remaining facts from
the pleadings. See Rule 36(c).
Petitioner is a Delaware corporation whose principal place
of business was in Chicago, Illinois, when its petition was
filed. From January through June 1984, its stock (the old FMC
1 Unless otherwise indicated, Rule references are to the Tax
Court Rules of Practice and Procedure.
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