- 19 -
In the present case, respondent never received adequate
substantiation regarding petitioner’s claimed filing status and
dependency exemption deduction, and petitioner ultimately
conceded those issues. In contrast, by June 2001, respondent
received adequate substantiation regarding petitioner’s claimed
earned income credit, and respondent immediately conceded that
issue unconditionally.
Petitioner contends that it was unreasonable for respondent
to require adequate substantiation for the adjustments in issue
because respondent was collaterally estopped from even making
those adjustments.6 In this regard, petitioner points to the
decision in petitioner’s favor that was entered in docket No.
18517-99S regarding the taxable year 1998. However, petitioner’s
argument ignores the fact that none of the issues in the prior
case was actually litigated by the parties and decided by the
Court. See Peck v. Commissioner, 90 T.C. 162, 166-167 (1988),
affd. 904 F.2d 525 (9th Cir. 1990), discussing the requirements
for collateral estoppel. Rather, in the case at docket No.
18517-99S, the Court merely entered decision pursuant to the
stipulation of the parties. In this regard, what we said many
years ago in Hart Metal Prods. Corp. v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo.
1969-164, affd. 437 F.2d 946 (7th Cir. 1971) is apropos:
6 We note that petitioner’s contention appears to be
inconsistent with her concession in the present case of the
issues related to filing status, standard deduction, and the
dependency exemption deduction.
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011