FMC Corporation and Subsidiaries - Page 18




                                       - 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  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011