- 23 -
discharged, (2) proceeding in the Bankruptcy Court would not
prevent petitioner from relitigating the taxability of the
amounts he received under the settlement agreement in a
proceeding before this Court, and (3) permitting the Bankruptcy
Court to determine petitioner’s tax liability for 1994 would be
quicker than permitting this Court to make the determination.
We disagree with petitioner for the following reasons.
Firstly, petitioner claims that, if he were not misled into
inadvertently giving up his rights, he would have been able to
have this Court rule on the merits of his tax contentions. At
the time that, petitioner asserts, he was being lured into
agreeing to allow the Bankruptcy Court to deal with his 1994 tax
liability, (1) petitioner was already in the Bankruptcy Court
because he filed a bankruptcy petition, (2) respondent had
submitted in the Bankruptcy Court a claim for petitioner’s 1994
tax liability, (3) the notice of deficiency had not yet been
issued, and (4), of course, petitioner had not yet filed a
petition with the Tax Court. Petitioner has not explained what
practical course he would otherwise have followed in order to
have the Tax Court rule on his tax contentions before the
Bankruptcy Court ruled on respondent’s claim, and thereby avoid
res judicata. See, e.g., secs. 6503(h), 6213(f); McClamma v.
Commissioner, 76 T.C. 754 (1981). Accordingly, we conclude that
Page: Previous 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011