- 17 -
Respondent contends that (1) the doctrine of res judicata
precludes petitioner from litigating every issue petitioner
raised other than the filing status issue, (2) the doctrine of
collateral estoppel precludes petitioner from litigating the
section 104 issue, and (3) petitioner’s filing status for 1994 is
married filing separate. Respondent also raises alternative
contentions with respect to every issue other than the filing
status issue.
Without objection from petitioner, respondent filed an
amended answer, the amendment raising the affirmative defense of
collateral estoppel as to the section 104(a)(2) issue.
Respondent then filed a motion for partial summary judgment that
“Petitioner should be precluded from relitigating the identical
issue previously adjudicated in the Bankruptcy Court pursuant to
the applicable doctrine of res judicata, to wit: collateral
estoppel (issue preclusion), or claim preclusion.” The motion
states that “if this motion is granted, there remains only one
genuine issue of material fact for trial: whether or not
petitioner is entitled to a filing status of married, filing
jointly.” Petitioner’s memorandum in opposition to the motion
states as follows:
I. ISSUE
Whether the doctrine of res judicata can be applied to
a situation where petitioner was deliberately misled by
the respondent into a course of action solely to
achieve respondent’s goal of tax maximization while
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011