- 13 -
that motion, Goldman agreed that it had a contractual, fiduciary,
or other duty to petitioner to keep information relating to its
restructuring plan confidential and that this duty had been
breached. After a 3-day evidentiary hearing, held under Rule
43(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the court granted
Goldman's motion for summary judgment on the remaining claims
against Goldman. See FMC Corp. v. Boesky, 825 F. Supp. 623
(S.D.N.Y. 1993). Upon appeal, the Court of Appeals for the
Second Circuit upheld the judgments of the U.S. District Courts
for the Northern District of Illinois and the Southern District
of New York. See FMC Corp. v. Boesky, 36 F.3d 255 (2d Cir.
1994). That judgment became final during 1994.
On its 1994 Federal income tax return, petitioner claimed a
theft loss deduction of $217,649,340. Respondent disallowed this
deduction in full.
Discussion
We must decide whether petitioner is collaterally estopped
from proving that it is entitled to deduct the claimed theft
loss. Respondent moves the Court to decide this issue summarily,
asserting that collateral estoppel prevents petitioner from
deducting such a loss. Petitioner objects to respondent’s
motion. Petitioner asserts that two elements of collateral
estoppel have not been met. First, petitioner argues, the
factual and legal issues presented here are different from the
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