FMC Corporation and Subsidiaries - Page 16




                                       - 16 -                                         
          supra at 153-154; Meier v. Commissioner, 91 T.C. 273, 282-284               
          (1988).                                                                     
               Collateral estoppel applies when six conditions are met.               
          First, the issue in the later case must be identical in all                 
          respects to the issue decided in the prior case.  Commissioner v.           
          Sunnen, supra at 599-600; Peck v. Commissioner, 90 T.C. 162,                
          166-167 (1988), affd. 904 F.2d 525 (9th Cir. 1990).  Second, a              
          final judgment must have been rendered in the prior case by a               
          court of competent jurisdiction.  Peck v. Commissioner, supra at            
          166; Gammill v. Commissioner, 62 T.C. 607, 613 (1974).  Third,              
          collateral estoppel must be asserted in the later case against a            
          party to the prior case or against a privy to that party.  Peck             
          v. Commissioner, supra at 166-167; Gammill v. Commissioner, supra           
          at 614-615; see also Parklane Hosiery Co. v. Shore, supra                   
          (mutuality of parties is not necessary for collateral estoppel).            
          Fourth, the issue in the later case must be one that the parties            
          to the prior case actually litigated and that was essential to              
          the prior decision.  Commissioner v. Sunnen, supra at 598, 601;             
          Peck v. Commissioner, supra at 166-167.  Fifth, the controlling             
          facts and legal principles must remain unchanged from the prior             
          litigation.  Commissioner v. Sunnen, supra at 599-600; Peck v.              
          Commissioner, supra at 166-167.  Sixth, no special circumstances            
          exist that would warrant the trial court in the later case to               
          exercise its discretion to find an exception to the normal rules            






Page:  Previous  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011