Jeanne M. Trent - Page 9

                                        - 9 -                                         
          prior judgment is a bar in subsequent litigation.  See Jones v.             
          United States, 466 F.2d 131, 136 (10th Cir. 1972); Cory v.                  
          Commissioner, 159 F.2d 391, 392 (3d Cir. 1947), affg. a                     
          Memorandum Opinion of this Court dated Mar. 10, 1945; Dean v.               
          Commissioner, 56 T.C. 895, 899-900 (1971); Milberg v.                       
          Commissioner, 54 T.C. 1562 (1970); Fairmont Aluminum Co. v.                 
          Commissioner, 22 T.C. 1377 (1954), affd. 222 F.2d 622 (4th Cir.             
          1955).  Petitioner’s criteria would be impractical to apply in              
          the context of a doctrine intended to minimize multiplicity of              
          proceedings.  See Jones v. United States, supra at 136; Dean v.             
          Commissioner, supra at 902.  The related but broader doctrine of            
          collateral estoppel has been applied to decisions where the                 
          taxpayer has appeared pro se in the prior proceeding.  See                  
          Calcutt v. Commissioner, supra at 25.                                       
               Under the narrow circumstances of this case, however, we               
          conclude that the general rule of res judicata should not apply.            
          Petitioner’s meeting with the Appeals officer handling her 1994             
          deficiency case occurred about the time that section 6015 was               
          being finalized by Congress and at least 10 days before its                 
          effective date.  Although the decision was entered pursuant to              
          the negotiated settlement months later, it appears that both the            
          Appeals officer and petitioner were ignorant as to the effect of            
          the new law.  Res judicata was not discussed in the notice of               
          determination denying relief to petitioner or in the memorandum             

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011