- 45 -
decide in the case at hand. Collateral estoppel applies only to
issues actually decided in a prior proceeding. Petitioner asked
the bankruptcy court to find that the tentative refunds for 1981,
1984, and 1985 were uncollectible nonrebate refunds. The
bankruptcy court opined the tentative refund for 1985 was
uncollectible but specifically excluded the 1981 and 1984
tentative refunds from its conclusion, leaving the final
determination with respect to the 1981 and 1984 tentative refunds
to this Court. According to the bankruptcy court, litigation in
this Court with respect to 1981 and 1984 would “provide finality
as to those years”. The bankruptcy court clearly assumed the
Court has jurisdiction to enter a decision based on the
stipulation of settled issues and did not intend that its opinion
on the 1985 tentative refund would be accorded preclusive effect
as to the 1981 and 1984 tentative refunds, or that it would be
turned into an argument about jurisdiction that, according to
petitioner, respondent is collaterally estopped from challenging.
The application of collateral estoppel to the case at hand
is also inappropriate because the bankruptcy court’s decision
lacks finality. “To be ‘final’ for purposes of collateral
estoppel the decision need only be immune, as a practical matter,
to reversal or amendment.” Miller Brewing Co. v. Jos. Schlitz
Brewing Co., 605 F.2d 990, 996 (7th. Cir. 1979). “Whether a
judgment * * * [is] ‘final’ in the sense of precluding further
Page: Previous 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011