- 18 -
respondent’s representative stated there were
alternatives available to petitioner which, in fact, it
now states now are not available due to, among other
matters, res judicata.
Oral argument on respondent’s motion was held at the calendar
call for the Court’s trial session on which the instant case had
previously been set for trial. The proceedings on respondent’s
motion ended with the following:
THE COURT: Would your attorney be able to -- your
attorney in you[r] bankruptcy case be able to back up your
contention that you were misled?
MR. STRONG: She would and the expert witnesses we had
at the bankruptcy hearing would otherwise be able to do
that.
THE COURT: At this point, the Court could not conclude
that there is no substantial dispute about a material fact,
and so Respondent’s motion for partial summary judgment is
denied. However, Respondent’s contention that -- I guess
it’s res judicata rather than collateral estoppel.
MS. GLAZMAN: Yes, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Respondent’s contention that res judicata
precludes a determination of those issues in Petitioner’s
favor in this case is never -- nevertheless has been
properly raised and is still before the Court.
We consider first the matters involved in respondent’s
contentions as to preclusion, see Rules 39 and 41(b)(1),7 and
then we consider the parties’ dispute as to petitioner’s filing
status.
7Unless indicated otherwise, all Rule references are to the
Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure.
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