- 18 -
difference in legal issues, petitioner asserts, the prior
decision rested primarily on the legal conclusion that petitioner
and its shareholders were a single economic unit. Petitioner
asserts that a corporation and its shareholders are not a single
economic unit for purposes of this case.
We reject petitioner’s argument that the issue at hand was
not at issue in its prior case. Although we agree with
petitioner that its theft loss deduction for Federal income tax
purposes was not at issue there, the focus of collateral estoppel
is set appropriately on the identity of issues and not on the
identity of legal proceedings. Collateral estoppel may apply to
an issue of fact (or law) that was litigated in a prior action
even though that litigation related to a claim that is absent
from the current case. Brotman v. Commissioner, 105 T.C. at 148;
Bertoli v. Commissioner, 103 T.C. 501, 508 (1994).
Our decision as to the validity of petitioner’s claimed
theft loss deduction requires that we find the value of the old
FMC stock at the time of petitioner’s recapitalization. See sec.
1.165-8(c), Income Tax Regs. The courts in petitioner’s prior
case against Goldman also had to make that factual determination
in order for them to decide petitioner’s claim for damages.
Contrary to petitioner’s assertion, the fact that the courts in
the prior case did not decide a specific claim against Boesky
does not prevent this Court from applying collateral estoppel to
Page: Previous 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011