- 23 -
jurisdiction over this case, Freytag v. Commissioner, supra at
41, and we denied petitioners’ motion. Although petitioners in
their posttrial briefs again attempt to challenge this Court’s
jurisdiction in this case, we reject petitioners’ jurisdictional
argument.
We also reject petitioners’ allegations that the tax
liabilities at issue in this case were fully litigated in their
bankruptcy proceeding and that the doctrine of res judicata
operates to preclude additional litigation in this Court. The
record is devoid of any evidence demonstrating that the subject
tax liabilities were ever litigated in any of petitioners’
bankruptcy proceedings. In fact, the order of discharge relied
upon by petitioners expressly states that the debts for most
taxes are not discharged in a chapter 7 bankruptcy case and that
any party to that case may request that it be reopened to
determine whether a particular debt has been discharged. See
Neilson v. Commissioner, 94 T.C. 1, 9 (1990) (Tax Court lacks
jurisdiction to decide whether income tax deficiencies were
discharged in bankruptcy). Moreover, petitioners have made no
effort to explain how the elements of res judicata are satisfied
by the record in this case. Consequently, we reject petitioners’
bankruptcy-related arguments, and we proceed to the substantive
issues presented in this case.
Page: Previous 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011