- 9 -
period of limitations for collection was invalid and such period
has therefore expired. It is respondent’s contention that
petitioner is collaterally estopped from raising the issues of
the validity of the assessments, the sufficiency of the notice of
the assessments, the requirement of notices of deficiency, and
the expiration of the period on limitation on collections.
With respect to the return assessments, we agree with
respondent. The foregoing issues as raised by petitioner in the
instant case, insofar as they relate to the return assessments,
are identical to those raised by him in the District Court case,
the controlling facts and applicable legal rules are the same,
and, except with respect to the examination assessments (as more
fully discussed below), the issues were litigated, essential to
the prior decision, and finally determined in the District Court
case. See Peck v. Commissioner, 90 T.C. 162, 166-167 (1988),
affd. 904 F.2d 525 (9th Cir. 1990). The District Court
concluded, with respect to the return assessments, that they were
validly entered, adequately noticed, and not dependent upon the
prior issuance of notices of deficiency (because the assessments
covered amounts reported on petitioner’s returns). The District
Court likewise concluded that petitioner’s May 14, 1997,
execution of the Form 900 was a valid extension of the period of
limitations on collection to December 31, 2000. We hold that
petitioner is collaterally estopped from further litigating these
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011