Tae M. and Young J. Kim - Page 7

                                        - 7 -                                         
               The Supreme Court described the doctrine of res judicata as            
               The general rule of res judicata applies to repetitious                
               suits involving the same cause of action.  It rests                    
               upon considerations of economy of judicial time and                    
               public policy favoring the establishment of certainty                  
               in legal relations.  The rule provides that when a                     
               court of competent jurisdiction has entered a final                    
               judgment on the merits of a cause of action, the par-                  
               ties to the suit and their privies are thereafter bound                
               “not only as to every matter which was offered and                     
               received to sustain or defeat the claim or demand, but                 
               as to any other admissible matter which might have been                
               offered for that purpose.”  The judgment puts an end to                
               the cause of action, which cannot again be brought into                
               litigation between the parties upon any ground what-                   
               ever, absent fraud or some other factor invalidating                   
               the judgment.  [Commissioner v. Sunnen, 333 U.S. 591,                  
               597 (1948); citations omitted.]                                        
               In Gustafson v. Commissioner, supra, the Court held on facts           
          substantially the same as those involved in the instant case                
          “that the doctrine of res judicata bars an action for administra-           
          tive costs under section 7430(f)(2) to the extent that the                  
          recovery of such costs could have been pursued in a prior defi-             
          ciency, liability, revocation, or partnership case.” Gustafson v.           
          Commissioner, supra at 93.  We conclude that Gustafson is con-              
          trolling here.  We hold that the doctrine of res judicata bars              
          petitioners from litigating in the instant case their claim for             
          administrative costs under section 7430(f)(2).  We shall grant              
          respondent’s motion.                                                        
               We have considered all of the contentions and arguments of             
          petitioners that are not discussed herein, and we find them to be           

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011