- 20 -
19, 1998, was loans. He incorrectly certified to the Missouri
Division of Family Services that he did not have property in a
safe deposit box. He told Pierce that he had put about $25,000-
$30,000 in the safe deposit box between January 1 and March 18,
1998. However, the last time petitioner entered the safe deposit
box before March 18, 1998, was December 10, 1997.
4. Effect of the District Court Opinion in the Jeopardy
Assessment Proceeding
The District Court found in the jeopardy assessment
proceeding that petitioner had a cash hoard of $100,727.6
However, the issue before the District Court was whether the
jeopardy assessment was appropriate, not petitioner’s liability
for tax. See sec. 7429(b); Gaw v. Commissioner. T.C. Memo. 1995-
373 (section 7429 review is a summary proceeding; the court does
not decide the taxpayer's tax liability); Bean v. United States,
618 F. Supp. 652, 659 (N.D. Ga. 1985); Revis v. United States,
558 F. Supp. 1071, 1074 (D.R.I. 1983).
In deciding whether a taxpayer has offered credible
evidence, we may consider another court’s findings. However,
absent application of res judicata or collateral estoppel, the
findings of another court are not controlling because, in this
6 The parties agree that respondent is not collaterally
estopped by the District Court decision from disputing that
petitioner had a cash hoard larger than $100,727. See Estate of
Merchant v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1990-160, affd. 947 F.2d
1390 (9th Cir. 1991).
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011