Jose A. Perez - Page 9

                                        - 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