- 42 -
petitioner’s contention that “the facts relating to
[petitioner’s] authority to receive the refunds have now been
conclusively established.”
We do not give collateral estoppel effect to the bankruptcy
court’s opinion because the issue we are being asked to decide is
not whether tentative refunds paid to the “former common parent”
of an affiliated group are rebate or nonrebate refunds. Instead,
the issue we are being asked to decide is whether we have
jurisdiction over tentative refunds paid to a corporation when
the affiliated group, of which the corporation had been the
common parent, underwent a restructuring and the identity of the
common parent of the prerestructured group was not determined at
the time the tentative refunds were paid. This is not the issue
that was litigated in and decided by the bankruptcy court. While
we agree with petitioner, as we stated in Lesinski v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1997-234, that the Court does not have
jurisdiction over nonrebate refunds, and we also agree that
Interlake Corp. v. Commissioner, supra, is precedent for
analyzing tentative refunds in the rebate/nonrebate framework, we
disagree with petitioner that the bankruptcy court’s nonrebate
conclusion necessarily forecloses the Court’s jurisdiction in the
case at hand.
To decide whether we have jurisdiction, we must consider the
payment of the tentative refunds to petitioner in light of the
Page: Previous 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011