Charles Jerome Posnanski - Page 7

                                        - 7 -                                         
          lieu of live testimony in the instant case, Mr. Biskupic and                
          petitioner’s attorney in his criminal proceeding, Robert E.                 
          Meldman, both stated that they believed that petitioner’s civil             
          tax liabilities were not resolved as a result of the criminal               
               Petitioner has conceded the amounts of the underpayments set           
          forth in the notice of deficiency.  Petitioner appears to argue             
          that the doctrine of collateral estoppel applies to bar                     
          respondent from seeking civil tax liabilities against him.                  
          Alternatively, petitioner argues that he is not liable for the              
          civil fraud penalty.                                                        
               Petitioner appears to argue that he is not liable for the              
          underpayments because the plea agreement in his criminal                    
          proceeding disposed of his civil tax liabilities for the years in           
          issue.  The doctrine of collateral estoppel provides that once an           
          issue of fact or law is “actually and necessarily determined by a           
          court of competent jurisdiction, that determination is conclusive           
          in subsequent suits based on a different cause of action                    
          involving a party to the prior litigation.”  Montana v. United              
          States, 440 U.S. 147, 153 (1979).  However, for collateral                  
          estoppel to apply, resolution of the disputed issue must have               

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011