- 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
proceedings.
OPINION
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