- 4 -
Interlake v. Commissioner . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Summary Assessment of the 1985 Tentative Refund . . . . 20
The Bankruptcy Proceedings .............. 21
Change of Petitioner’s Representatives in This
Proceeding ..................... 24
Positions of the Parties ............... 25
Discussion ........................ 27
Rebate and Nonrebate Refunds ............. 27
Jurisdiction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
The Notice of Deficiency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
Respondent’s Determination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
Collateral Estoppel. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
The “Injustice Exception” to Collateral Estoppel . . . 47
Tentative Refunds as Rebate Refunds. . . . . . . . . . 50
Rebate v. Nonrebate Refunds. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
Conclusion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
MEMORANDUM OPINION
BEGHE, Judge: This case is before the Court on respondent’s
motion for entry of decision on the parties’ stipulation of
settled issues. We shall grant respondent’s motion and enter
decision in accordance with the stipulation.
Background
Some of the facts have been stipulated and are incorporated
by this reference. Petitioner’s principal place of business was
in Riverdale, Illinois, when it filed the petition. Unless
otherwise indicated, all section references are to the Internal
Revenue Code in effect for the years at issue, and all Rule
references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011